The slow death of Julian Assange by state torture

Last April I wrote about the persecution of Julian Assange, an outstanding journalist and, through his fearless reporting, no less than a benefactor of mankind. During the six months since his arrest he has been kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours each day and subjected to psychological and drug-induced torture. He is now a living wreck, unrecognisable from the man with a razor-sharp intellect. Craig Murray, a former British ambassador and a personal friend of Assange, was present when Assange was taken to Westminster Magistrates Court to lay the groundwork for a kangaroo trial. Craig Murray's account of the court proceedings is a damning indictment of the "British justice" flaunted by the British ruling classes. People who are earmarked by the government for wilful victimisation can expect no justice. Murray has published a lengthy blog at his website today. Most of it is copied below. 

with razor-sharp intellect

 struggles to recall name

ASSANGE IN COURT by Craig Murray

I was deeply shaken while witnessing yesterday’s events in Westminster Magistrates Court. Every decision was railroaded through over the scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening. 

Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.

But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought. 

Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness. 

I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.

The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election; a simple clarification the mainstream media appears incapable of understanding.

The purpose of yesterday’s hearing was case management; to determine the timetable for the extradition proceedings. The key points at issue were that Julian’s defence was requesting more time to prepare their evidence; and arguing that political offences were specifically excluded from the extradition treaty. There should, they argued, therefore be a preliminary hearing to determine whether the extradition treaty applied at all.

The reasons given by Assange’s defence team for more time to prepare were both compelling and startling. They had very limited access to their client in jail and had not been permitted to hand him any documents about the case until one week ago. He had also only just been given limited computer access, and all his relevant records and materials had been seized from the Ecuadorean Embassy by the US Government; he had no access to his own materials for the purpose of preparing his defence.

Furthermore, the defence argued, they were in touch with the Spanish courts about a very important and relevant legal case in Madrid which would provide vital evidence. It showed that the CIA had been directly ordering spying on Julian in the Embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to provide security there. Crucially this included spying on privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers discussing his defence against these extradition proceedings, which had been in train in the USA since 2010. In any normal process, that fact would in itself be sufficient to have the extradition proceedings dismissed. Incidentally I learnt on Sunday that the Spanish material produced in court, which had been commissioned by the CIA, specifically includes high resolution video coverage of Julian and I discussing various matters.

The evidence to the Spanish court also included a CIA plot to kidnap Assange, which went to the US authorities’ attitude to lawfulness in his case and the treatment he might expect in the United States. Julian’s team explained that the Spanish legal process was happening now and the evidence from it would be extremely important, but it might not be finished and thus the evidence not fully validated and available in time for the current proposed timetable for the Assange extradition hearings.

For the prosecution, James Lewis QC stated that the government strongly opposed any delay being given for the defence to prepare, and strongly opposed any separate consideration of the question of whether the charge was a political offence excluded by the extradition treaty. Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. She was open to changes in dates for submission of evidence and responses before this, and called a ten minute recess for the prosecution and defence to agree these steps. 

What happened next was very instructive. There were five representatives of the US government present (initially three, and two more arrived in the course of the hearing), seated at desks behind the lawyers in court. The prosecution lawyers immediately went into huddle with the US representatives, then went outside the courtroom with them, to decide how to respond on the dates. 

After the recess the defence team stated they could not, in their professional opinion, adequately prepare if the hearing date were kept to February, but within Baraitser’s instruction to do so they nevertheless outlined a proposed timetable on delivery of evidence. In responding to this, Lewis’ junior counsel scurried to the back of the court to consult the Americans again while Lewis actually told the judge he was “taking instructions from those behind”. It is important to note that as he said this, it was not the UK Attorney-General’s office who were being consulted but the US Embassy. Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved. Baraitser gave a ruling agreeing everything Lewis had said.

At this stage it was unclear why we were sitting through this farce. The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision. The charade might as well have been cut and the US government simply sat on the bench to control the whole process. Nobody could sit there and believe they were in any part of a genuine legal process or that Baraitser was giving a moment’s consideration to the arguments of the defence. Her facial expressions on the few occasions she looked at the defence ranged from contempt through boredom to sarcasm. When she looked at Lewis she was attentive, open and warm.

The extradition is plainly being rushed through in accordance with a Washington dictated timetable. Apart from a desire to pre-empt the Spanish court providing evidence on CIA activity in sabotaging the defence, what makes the February date so important to the USA? I would welcome any thoughts.

Finally, Baraitser turned to Julian and ordered him to stand, and asked him if he had understood the proceedings. He replied in the negative, said that he could not think, and gave every appearance of disorientation. Then he seemed to find an inner strength, drew himself up a little, and said:

I do not understand how this process is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t even access my writings. It is very difficult, where I am, to do anything. These people have unlimited resources.

The effort then seemed to become too much, his voice dropped and he became increasingly confused and incoherent. He spoke of whistleblowers and publishers being labeled enemies of the people, then spoke about his children’s DNA being stolen and of being spied on in his meetings with his psychologist. I am not suggesting at all that Julian was wrong about these points, but he could not properly frame nor articulate them. He was plainly not himself, very ill and it was just horribly painful to watch. Baraitser showed neither sympathy nor the least concern. She tartly observed that if he could not understand what had happened, his lawyers could explain it to him, and she swept out of court.

The whole experience was profoundly upsetting. It was very plain that there was no genuine process of legal consideration happening here. What we had was a naked demonstration of the power of the state, and a naked dictation of proceedings by the Americans. Julian was in a box behind bulletproof glass, and I and the thirty odd other members of the public who had squeezed in were in a different box behind more bulletproof glass. I do not know if he could see me or his other friends in the court, or if he was capable of recognising anybody. He gave no indication that he did. 

In Belmarsh he is kept in complete isolation for 23 hours a day. He is permitted 45 minutes exercise. If he has to be moved, they clear the corridors before he walks down them and they lock all cell doors to ensure he has no contact with any other prisoner outside the short and strictly supervised exercise period. There is no possible justification for this inhuman regime, used on major terrorists, being imposed on a publisher who is a remand prisoner.

I have been both cataloguing and protesting for years the increasingly authoritarian powers of the UK state, but that the most gross abuse could be so open and undisguised is still a shock. The campaign of demonisation and dehumanisation against Julian, based on government and media lie after government and media lie, has led to a situation where he can be slowly killed in public sight, and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth about government wrongdoing, while receiving no assistance from “liberal” society. 

Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?

You can read Craig Murray's full blog here: Assange in Court

The Mumbai False Flag Re-visited

The False Flag of Mumbai, on 26 November 2008, has already been extensively exposed in books and articles. Perhaps the most famous book on the Mumbai False Flag is Elias Davidsson’s “The Betrayal of India : Re-visiting the 26/11 Evidence”. A review of that book can be read here:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-betrayal-of-india-a-close-look-at-the-2008-mumbai-terror-attacks-2/5593721

Although Pakistanis have written numerous articles about the Mumbai False Flag, what was missing was a book giving full details of how the operation was planned and executed. This shortcoming has now been addressed by Munir Ahmad Baloch in his Urdu book “Mumbai 26/11: Hemant Karkare aur Ajmal Kasaab” :              

ممبئی   26/11 : ہیمنت کرکرے اور اجمل قصاب 

Using primarily Indian sources, Munir Baloch shows how flimsy and laughable the charge of terrorism against Pakistan was. While Davidsson thinks that the heinous event of 26/11 was probably a joint effort by India, US and Israel, Munir Baloch implicates only India and the US in this plot. 

To demonise Pakistan, the plotters massacred 166 people over three days, commencing 26 November. The official conspiracy theory is that there were 10 "terrorists" who had defied India's army and security services for several days. The resulting lies and mendacious reporting in the US-controlled western Mainstream media (MSM), and in Indian media, established Pakistan as a “terrorist” state. The puppet rulers of Pakistan, installed by the USR (US Regime), either kept quiet or made traitorous statements fed to them by their USR/Indian handlers. It is only with the arrival of Prime Minister Imran Khan that the country has plucked up courage to speak the truth to the world, above all in Imran’s seminal speech to the UN General Assembly on 27 September, 2019. Of particular relevance in this context is the way Imran Khan pulled the mask away from the face of the Terrorist Prime Minister of India, the Butcher of Gujerat, Modi. The world is now slowly waking up to the fact that all terrorist events attributed to Pakistan in the past were either the handiwork of India or USR or a collaboration between the two (with, possibly, Israeli participation).

The tragic hero of Munir Baloch's book is Inspector Hemant Karkare, the Anti-Terrorism squad chief, a Hindu who had exposed the web of extremist Hindu terrorism in Indian army and security forces. He had named high ranking serving officers, such as Colonel Purohit, who were neck-deep in numerous massacres, which they blamed on “Muslim terrorism”. Hindu terrorist organisations such as RSS (of which the current Terrorist PM of India is a lifetime member) considered Karkare an enemy of Hindus and of “Mother India”. Modi had openly declared him to be a traitor, who was to be dealt with mercilessly. Hemant Karkare, and two of his colleagues closely involved in the uncovering of Hindu Terrorism, were callously murdered by sharpshooters amid the mayhem and confusion of Mumbai False Flag. Following his murder, a former Inspector General of police in the sate of Maharashtra, S M Mushrif, wrote a book titled “Who killed Karkare? – the real face of terrorism in India”.

Munir Baloch tells us that the fall guy, Ajmal Kassab from Pakistan, had in fact been kidnapped from Nepal by Indian Secret Service in 2006 and had been held in captivity. According to the official conspiracy theory he was the only "terrorist" who survived, his nine companions having been killed in the encounter. No photographs were ever produced of the nine dead "terrorists". Ajmal Kassab, however, was allegedly snapped up at a railway station by a fearless photographer of "The Times of India" who put his life at risk to take Ajmal's photo while people were being gunned down all around him! What a hero! He performed an invaluable service because, as the Indian public learnt later, the numerous CCTV cameras at the station had conveniently broken down at noon that very day. What's more, the CCTV cameras, at Taj Mahal and Oberoi-Trident hotels, at Leopold Cafe or at Cama Hospital had apparently all failed to record the proceedings of the day as no recordings were ever produced in the kangaroo trial that condemned the kid to death.

Kassab's photograph purported to show a “terrorist” on a Mumbai railway station shooting passengers and railway employees. What we see in the picture is a freshly shaved youth with carefully combed hair, laden with rucksack and bags, wearing clean and pressed multi-pocketed trousers, his Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle pointing downwards! This was the young man who, according to Indian authorities, had spent four days in boats (first his own, then an Indian fisherman’s) sailing from Karachi to Mumbai, eventually stepping down on the shores of Mumbai at night on Wednesday, 26 November, 2008. He had then proceeded to set fire to a petrol filling station and to embark on a callous murder spree. When he eventually arrived at a railway station, where his photograph was allegedly taken, you would expect him to look haggard, with several days’ growth of beard, his face covered with dirt and blood and his clothes looking filthy. Not a bit. He might have been a typical wooden Bollywood hero who had arrived at the station for the shooting of a film. This fact alone speaks volumes about the ridiculous story that the MSM had hammered into the consciousness of the public through sheer repetition and ceaseless propaganda.

The film “A Wednesday”

An astonishing fact that I learned from Munir Baloch’s book is that the drama played out on 26 November could indeed be likened to the shooting of a film. A few months earlier, the Bollywood movie “A Wednesday” was produced by UTV Motion Pictures, directed by Neeraj Panday. The story had an uncanny resemblance to the Mumbai False Flag. It more or less foretold what was going to happen later the same year: 

On a wintry Wednesday night the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and the Oberoi-Trident Hotel are attacked by a group of terrorists, who massacre people and occupy the hotels, taking the hotel guests as hostages for bargaining with security forces. They ring up Mumbai Police Commissioner, demanding the release of four accomplices who are held in India. This film was on general release for just one week and then it mysteriously disappeared. Someone high up in the security forces must have realized that it was a foolish act to place their cards openly on the table. A few months later, the Mumbai False Flag turned out to be the real shooting of the rehearsal leading to “A Wednesday”!

Munir Ahmad Baloch’s book is published by Qalam Foundation International, Lahore. Its email address is: qalamfoundation3@gmail.com.