Deep State goes to Court to extradite Assange; signs of Torture; Spanish security company spied on him(1) Assange in Court; physical & mental deterioration indicates torture - Craig Murray(2) Spanish security company spied on Assange at Ecuadorian embassy in London(3) John Pilger: Court was swarming with US officials, their visible instructions holding sway(4) Julian Assange’s court hearing in London: Britain stages a lawless show-trial(5) Nationless Plutocrats are pulling the strings(6) Assange: the charges are a "political offence" for which extradition cannot be granted(1) Assange in Court; physical & mental deterioration indicates torture - Craig Murrayhttps://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/Assange in Court 43722 Oct, 2019by Craig MurrayUPDATE I have received scores of requests to republish and/or translate this article. It is absolutely free to use and reproduce and I should be delighted if everybody does; the world should know what is being done to Julian. So far, over 200,000 people have read it on this blogsite alone and it has already been reproduced on myriad other sites, some with much bigger readerships than my own. I have seen translations into German, Spanish and French and at least extracts in Catalan and Turkish. I only ask that you reproduce it complete or, if edits are made, plainly indicate them. Many thanks.BEGINSI 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.Baraitser dismissed the defence’s request for a separate prior hearing to consider whether the extradition treaty applied at all, without bothering to give any reason why (possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with). Yet this is Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007 in full:On the face of it, what Assange is accused of is the very definition of a political offence – if this is not, then what is? It is not covered by any of the exceptions from that listed. There is every reason to consider whether this charge is excluded by the extradition treaty, and to do so before the long and very costly process of considering all the evidence should the treaty apply. But Baraitser simply dismissed the argument out of hand.Just in case anybody was left in any doubt as to what was happening here, Lewis then stood up and suggested that the defence should not be allowed to waste the court’s time with a lot of arguments. All arguments for the substantive hearing should be given in writing in advance and a "guillotine should be applied" (his exact words) to arguments and witnesses in court, perhaps of five hours for the defence. The defence had suggested they would need more than the scheduled five days to present their case. Lewis countered that the entire hearing should be over in two days. Baraitser said this was not procedurally the correct moment to agree this but she will consider it once she had received the evidence bundles.(SPOILER: Baraitser is going to do as Lewis instructs and cut the substantive hearing short).Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in public again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh.Plainly the authorities were disconcerted by the hundreds of good people who had turned up to support Julian. They hope that far fewer will get to the much less accessible Belmarsh. I am fairly certain (and recall I had a long career as a diplomat) that the two extra American government officials who arrived halfway through proceedings were armed security personnel, brought in because of alarm at the number of protestors around a hearing in which were present senior US officials. The move to Belmarsh may be an American initiative.Assange’s defence team objected strenuously to the move to Belmarsh, in particular on the grounds that there are no conference rooms available there to consult their client and they have very inadequate access to him in the jail. Baraitser dismissed their objection offhand and with a very definite smirk.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? ——————————Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.(2) Spanish security company spied on Assange at Ecuadorian embassy in Londonhttps://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/09/inenglish/1562663427_224669.htmlSpanish security company spied on Julian Assange’s meetings with lawyersEL PAÍS has had access to video, audio and written reports showing that the WikiLeaks founder was the target of a surveillance operation while living at the Ecuadorian embassy in LondonMadrid 9 JUL 2019 - 18:30 CESTJulian Assange was spied on 24 hours a day during the time that he spent at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he took refuge for seven years.Documents, video and audio material that EL PAÍS has had access to show that a Spanish private defense and security firm named Undercover Global S. L., which was tasked with protecting the diplomatic building between 2012 and 2018, instructed its men to collect all possible information about the cyberactivist, particularly regarding his lawyers and collaborators.Assange was so paranoid about being spied on that he conducted some of his meetings inside the ladies’ bathroomSeveral video cameras, which were equipped with audio recording capability between December 2017 and March 2018, recorded dozens of meetings between the WikiLeaks founder and his attorneys and visitors. At these meetings, Assange’s legal defense strategy was discussed.The recording equipment picked up on several secret plans drafted by Assange’s team to spirit him out of the embassy in disguise and take him to Russia or Cuba. The projects were never executed because the Australian-born activist refused, as he considered this solution "a defeat."UC Global’s feverish, obsessive vigilance of "the guest," as he is described in the security firm’s notes, became more intense when Lenin Moreno became the new president of Ecuador in May 2017. It was Moreno who turned Assange over to British authorities. His predecessor, Rafael Correa, had granted him asylum and allowed him to stay at the embassy in London for seven years.The security employees at the embassy had a daily job to do: to monitor Assange’s every move, record his conversations, and take note of his moods. The company’s drive to uncover their target’s most intimate secrets led the team to carry out a handwriting examination behind his back, which resulted in a six-page report. Company employees also took a feces sample from a baby’s diaper to check whether Assange and one of his most faithful collaborators were the child’s parents. This intelligence work had nothing to do with protection duties.The security team for the Spanish company, which is based in Puerto Real (Cádiz), would write up a confidential report each day and send it to the company chief, David Morales, a former member of the military who trained with the special ops unit of the Marine Infantry, the marine corps of the Spanish Navy.The degree of detail found in these reports illustrates how the company was bent on accumulating as much information as possible on a man who is indicted on 18 counts for leaking thousands of cables from the US State Department, as well as secret information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."Great exaltation and nervousness by the guest after receiving news about the sentence commutation for [Chelsea] Manning [the soldier accused of passing secret documents to WikiLeaks]," reads the January 17, 2017 report. "Julian is providing a lot of information. The guest keeps writing in his agenda. You can feel the tension in the room. The guest hides his agenda with his hands at all times. Stella peeks out the door, thinking somebody could be listening in," writes the security employee about the visit made by Walaman Adan Robert on January 12, 2017.Another report dated January 21, 2017 says: "3.30pm-6.28pm. Pamela Anderson. They exchange information through notes. They take pictures inside the meeting room. The voice-distortion device is on at all times."On February 5 of that same year, the report says: "Approximately since 9pm, both the guest and Stella are moving things from the bedroom (clothes, mattress, suitcases, etc) to the entrance room. It is 11.35pm and they’re still at it."One of the visitors who elicited the biggest response from the Spanish security company was Andy Müller-Maguhn, a known German hacker. On one of his visits to Assange, security personnel photographed the inside of his travel bag and the numbers on his cellphones.But if the security guards were obsessed with capturing every last detail about the "guest" staying at the "hotel," the WikiLeaks founder was no less obsessed about avoiding being spied on. Every time he met with his lawyers and visitors, Assange would first turn on the aforementioned voice-distortion device, which was concealed inside a lamp. However, this did not prevent audio-recording equipment from capturing every conversation. Some videos show the cyberactivist writing with a folder covering the sheet of paper, to prevent any potential cameras from zooming in on his notes.The security employees at the embassy had a daily job to do: to monitor Assange’s every move, record his conversations, and take note of his moodsAssange was so paranoid about being spied on that he conducted some of his meetings inside the ladies’ bathroom, which he considered a safe place. A report written by a security employee named José Antonio on January 15, 2017 says: "11.18am Aitor Martínez [Spanish lawyer] brings a briefcase, a telephone and a laptop; 11.20am guest, Stella and Aitor Martínez head for the ladies’ room, where they hold the meeting. 1pm: they exit the ladies’ room." A few days earlier, on January 9, another employee reported on Assange’s meeting with his lawyers Melynda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson, Aitor Martínez and Baltasar Garzón.David Morales, the owner and director of UC Global S.L. declined to say whether his company spied on Assange. "All the information is confidential and it belongs to the government of Ecuador. We simply did a job. I cannot comment on anything that we did there, I can’t provide any details," he said in a telephone conversation.Asked directly whether they spied on Assange, the answer was: "We have our ethical and moral rules, and none of them were violated."The interest in monitoring Assange’s meetings with his lawyers did not end when the Lenín Moreno administration canceled the contract with UC Global and hired Ecuadorian company Promsecurity to take its place. Video cameras continued to record all meetings, and at least on one occasion, either embassy personnel or the new security team photographed a folder brought in by the lawyer Aitor Martínez during a meeting break.These photographs, as well as dozens of video and audio recordings, were recently used in an extortion attempt against Assange by several individuals based in Alicante, Spain. The courts are investigating the case, and two of the alleged extortionists were arrested.Meanwhile, the UK has approved a request for Assange’s extradition made by the US, where he faces 18 charges for leaking classified material.(3) John Pilger: Court was swarming with US officials, their visible instructions holding swayhttps://twitter.com/johnpilger/status/1186641535523315716John Pilger @johnpilger I have never known a judicial hearing like the vicious travesty of justice meted out to Julian #Assange yesterday. Swarming with US officials, their visible instructions holding sway, the court's nominal "judge" Vanessa Baraitser was a disgrace ...Stephen Emmott @StephenEmmott Oct 22 And not a word from Britain's supposedly independent judiciary. Cowards all. British citizens are given the impression that these stalwarts defend truth and justice. They don't. They fold to political pressure. Utterly and completely pathetic.Claire Titchmarsh @claire_IT_EN Oct 22 Rather more sinister than pathetic. Terrifying how apathetic and credulous the British public are. If it's accepted legal practice for foreign powers to dictate legal process in this country (don't believe it is) why are we not ALL demanding change.(4) Julian Assange’s court hearing in London: Britain stages a lawless show-trialhttps://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/24/pers-o24.html24 October 2019Julian Assange’s hearing in London’s Westminster Magistrates Court on Monday was a despicable show trial. Any pretence that this was somehow a legal proceeding, aiming to enforce the law and respect the rights of the accused, has been abandoned.Assange, who defied the most powerful governments by revealing to the world’s people war crimes and corruption, appeared gaunt and tormented by what a leading UN expert has described as torture.Craig Murray, a former British diplomat and current human rights activist, wrote that he was "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."Murray stated that Assange’s "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."In a grave warning, Murray wrote: "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."With all the vindictiveness of the British ruling elite, presiding judge Vanessa Baraitser did not even attempt to conceal her hostility to Assange, his legal team and supporters.Baraitser waved away arguments from Assange’s lawyers, which should have resulted in the immediate dismissal of proceedings for his extradition from Britain to the US, and his release from prison. These included the fact that existing treaties explicitly ban extradition from Britain to the US on political offences, and that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had conducted illegal spying against Assange while he was being protected by political asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy. The surveillance included audio and video recordings of Assange’s confidential meetings and the theft of his legal documents.Far from being scrutinised by the court, CIA henchmen were effectively running the hearing, openly coaching the British prosecutors. As investigative-journalist John Pilger wrote, the court was "swarming with US officials, their visible instructions holding sway."Finally, Baraitser rejected a request for a three-month delay to Assange’s full extradition hearing in February. Struggling to speak, Assange stated: "This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case… I can’t access any of my written work… They have an unfair advantage dealing with documents… This is not equitable what is happening here."Baraitser contemptuously declared that Assange could speak to his lawyers later if he did not understand the proceedings. Neither the judge, nor any other representative of the corrupt British judiciary, has explained why he is being held in virtual solitary confinement in the maximum-security Belmarsh Prison—despite the fact his custodial sentence on a bogus bail charge expired in September.The miserable show trial was not covered seriously by any major corporate publication in the world. All of them have sought to cover-up what it revealed: that the nine-year US vendetta against Assange has been an illegal political persecution from the outset.Every step of the way, the Guardian, the New York Times and a host of other corporate outlets have functioned as the adjuncts of the US government in its attempt to destroy the WikiLeaks’ founder.They incessantly promoted the bogus Swedish investigation into alleged sexual misconduct against Assange, which was the fraudulent basis for his arrest by the British police in 2010 and which forced him to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012.The well-heeled journalists claimed that Assange was "hiding from justice." They covered up the fact that Assange was never charged with a crime in Sweden, and that one of the women involved said she had been "railroaded by the police" into making a complaint. The corporate journalists derided Assange’s insistence that the Swedish allegations were aimed at blackening his name and providing an alternate route for his extradition to the US over WikiLeaks’ exposures of American war crimes.All of Assange’s warnings have come to pass. The entire pseudo-legal veneer of the campaign against him, including the Swedish frame-up, has been exposed as a fraud. Even before he has been extradited to the US, Assange is facing a lawless show-trial in Britain.But the corporate publications have not reversed their position. The torrent of slander has continued, as they seek to keep the population in the dark about the dire implications of Assange’s persecution.For their part, innumerable corrupt pseudo-left organisations, from the British Socialist Workers Party to the now defunct US International Socialist Organisation, endorsed the CIA-concocted lies that Assange had to answer the Swedish allegations. From Jacobin magazine in the US, to Socialist Alternative in Australia, they have remained silent as the attempted slow-motion assassination of Assange has proceeded this year. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the British Labour Party, who occasionally claims to be a socialist, has refused to defend the WikiLeaks’ founder.The case is an abject lesson in the rotten character of every official institution: from the courts, to the media, to the political establishment, including its pseudo-left wing. All of them are hurtling towards authoritarianism, amid the deepest crisis of capitalism since the 1930s and a resurgence of the class struggle.Assange will only be freed by a mass political movement of the working class, the constituency for the defence of democratic rights. Around the world, millions of workers are entering into explosive struggles, from the 48,000 US auto-workers on strike, to the hundreds of thousands protesting in Chile and Ecuador.The World Socialist Web Site calls on workers to take up the fight for the immediate freedom of all class war prisoners, including Assange and Chelsea Manning—the courageous whistleblower incarcerated by the Trump administration for refusing to give false testimony against Assange.Some 90 years ago, the socialist workers’ movement mounted a campaign in defence of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, who were framed-up by the US government because of their political activism. That fight, which mobilised millions of workers internationally, played a defining role in world politics and has gone down in history as one of the great struggles against state persecution. The Assange case is to this generation what Sacco and Vanzetti was to the 1920s.The pursuit of the WikiLeaks’ founder is aimed at creating a precedent for the suppression of all opposition to militarism, authoritarianism and government illegality. His defence must become the spearhead of a counter-offensive by the working class for all its social and democratic rights and against imperialist war.There is no time to lose. Craig Murray’s warning, that "unless Julian is released shortly, he will be destroyed," is an alarm that must be answered by all defenders of democratic rights, through an active campaign for Assange’s immediate freedom. In working class suburbs, in factories and at university campuses, all workers and youth must be apprised of Assange’s plight and mobilised for his freedom, including through meetings, campaigns and rallies.Contact us today to take part in this crucial struggle.Oscar Grenfell(5) Nationless Plutocrats are pulling the stringshttps://www.zerohedge.com/political/johnstone-only-cowards-and-sadists-support-persecution-assangeJohnstone: Only Cowards And Sadists Support The Persecution Of AssangeThu, 10/24/2019 - 05:00Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,Former British ambassador Craig Murray has published a very disturbing account of Julian Assange’s court appearance yesterday which I recommend reading in full. There have been many reports published about Assange’s case management hearing, but the combination of Murray’s prior experience with torture victims, his familiarity with British courts, his friendship with Assange, and his lack of reverence for western power structures allowed for a much more penetrating insight into what happened than anyone else has been able to provide so far.Here is a small excerpt: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.This may be the most important article you will ever read. I’m not exaggerating. I beg you now to read it. #JulianAssange in Court - Craig Murray https://t.co/D42gqKDsMz — George Galloway (@georgegalloway) October 22, 2019Murray reports that there were no fewer than five representatives of the US government in the Westminster Magistrates Court that day, and that there were seated behind the British prosecutors and essentially giving them orders. The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, reportedly behaved coldly and snarkily towards the defense, smirking and refusing their requests without explanation, while behaving warmly and receptively toward the prosecution. Assange’s extradition hearing will commence without delay on February of next year, despite the case violating the 2003 US/UK extradition treaty, and despite new evidence emerging of CIA-tied espionage on Assange and his lawyers while he was at the Ecuadorian embassy. It will commence in a tiny Belmarsh courtroom with almost no room for the public to provide scrutiny, without Assange’s defense having adequate time to prepare.Assange’s lawyer Mark Summers told the court that the case was "a political attempt" by the United States "to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information." And of course he’s right. Nobody sincerely believes that the 175-year sentence that Assange is looking at if he’s successfully extradited to the US by the Trump administration is a reasonable punishment for publishing activities which the Obama administration had previously declined to prosecute based on the exact same evidence, citing concern for the damage the precedent would do to press freedoms. These charges have nothing to do with justice, and they aren’t meant to be merely punitive. They’re made to serve as a deterrent. A deterrent to journalists anywhere in the world who might otherwise see fit to publish inconvenient facts about the US government.This is obvious. It is obvious that the US government is destroying Assange to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information. It is therefore also obvious that any journalist who fails to use whatever platform they have to speak out against Assange’s persecution has no intention of ever publishing anything that the US government doesn’t want published. Their silence on or support for what is being done to this man can and should be taken as an admission that they are nothing other than state propagandists. State propagandists, sycophants, and cowards.Today in court, Julian Assange struggled to say his own name and date of birth as he appeared in the dock. He claimed to have not understood what happened in the case management hearing, and was holding back tears as he said: "I can't think properly". — Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) October 21, 2019Cowardice is driving public support for Assange’s persecution. Cowardice and sadism. Even if every single bogus smear against him were true, from the lies about feces on embassy walls to the still evidence-free allegation of Trump/Russia collusion, even if every single one of those ridiculous fantasies were true, his punishment to date would be more than enough. I mean, exactly how much torture is appropriate because your preferred candidate wasn’t the one who was elected? How weird is it that such entitled sadism goes unquestioned? To continue to call for more is to reveal your sick fetish, whether you’re one of the powerful people he pissed off or just another mindless repeater in the comments section. Enough. You’ve had your pound of flesh.We are watching a great tragedy unfold in a fractal-like way, from the zoomed-out meta tragedy of the worldwide death blow to press freedom, drilled down to the personal tragedy of this death blow to a man called Julian Assange. His once encyclopaedic brain can now barely remember his own birthday. This guts me. There are no other minds on earth that understood the power dynamics of invisible imperialism and the Orwellian dangers humanity now faces as we hurtle towards and AI-dominated information landscape as well as his did. That mind has been purposely destroyed. We must never forget that. We must never forgive that.It’s been a tough day. My heart has been hurting and my sighs have been long. The only brightness I can see through the bleakness is the quandary that appears to be emerging for these nationless plutocrats who are pulling the strings. The more they get their way, the more obvious their actions must necessarily be, because the thing they are attempting to do is so totally abnormal. Yesterday’s court proceedings were blatantly farcical, from the curious rulings, to the strange sight of US advisers interfering in a UK case about an Australian citizen, down to even the dismissive smirk on the judge’s face. None of this is normal, and when things aren’t normal there is a risk that people will notice, and things are only going to get stranger as they attempt to pull this off.(6) Assange: the charges are a "political offense" for which extradition cannot be grantedhttps://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/i-m-in-an-unfair-fight-against-a-superpower-julian-assange-tells-uk-court-20191021-p532vc.htmlBy Nick MillerOctober 21, 2019 — 11.07pmLondon: A gaunt, hesitant and apparently confused Julian Assange has told a London judge he is in an inequitable fight against a superpower that has been spying on his "interior life" and on confidential meetings with his legal team.The WikiLeaks founder is trying to avoid extradition to the US to face 17 espionage charges and one computer hacking charge.Julian Assange will face an extradition hearing in February 2020, after a British judge declined a request by his lawyers to delay proceedings by three months.His legal team revealed on Monday they want to deal a knockout blow to the case against him, by establishing that the charges are a "political offence" for which extradition cannot be granted.Assange appeared in person before District Judge Vanessa Baraitser in Westminster Magistrates Court, appearing tired and unwell and speaking hesitantly."I can’t think properly," he complained at the end of the brief administrative hearing, saying the US had "unlimited resources" and an "unfair advantage"."I can’t research anything [in prison], I can’t access any of my writing, it’s very difficult where I am [in Belmarsh Prison in South London] to do anything," he said."This is not equitable what’s happening here."His lawyer Mark Summers, QC, told the court the US administration was prosecuting Assange in a "concerted and avowed drive to escalate its existing war on whistleblowers, to encompass investigative journalists"."Our case is that it is a political attack to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing [classified] information."Summers appealed for extra time to gather evidence in support of Assange's case, after allegations emerged this year that a Spanish security firm had been passing on to US intelligence agencies video, audio and documents secretly gathered during Assange’s time in the Ecuador embassy in London.Last week a judge of the Spanish National Court issued an order to investigate the Cadiz company Undercover Global, for "crimes against privacy and the secrecy of lawyer-client communications, bribery and money laundering", in response to a complaint from Assange’s lawyers that Undercover Global had installed hidden microphones at the embassy and delivered information to Ecuador authorities and "agents of the United States"."The American state has been actively engaged in intruding on privileged discussions between Assange and his lawyers," Summers told the Westminster court on Monday.He said there was evidence of unlawful "copying" of Assange’s telephones and computers, and "hooded men breaking into lawyers’ offices".Assange complained to the judge the US had obtained details of his "interior life" through psychologist reports, and suggested they had tried to get hold of his children’s DNA.Kristinn Hrafnsson, the official WikiLeaks representative, said outside court that this was a reference to claims US agents had even collected DNA samples from nappies discarded at the embassy.Hrafnsson said the US had behaved like a "rogue state" in its investigation of Assange.Assange’s legal team, in a note distributed outside the court, said there was evidence before Spanish courts of "a sustained series of actions by a Spanish security company in conjunction with US intelligence services to obtain information by unlawful acts, theft and clandestine surveillance within the Ecuadorian embassy whilst Julian Assange was present there". ...with Nick Bonyhady