In London on Saturday #FreeJulianAssange

WikiLeaks Editor in Chief on the Prosecution of Julian Assange

Kristinn Hrafnsson, journalist and editor in chief of WikiLeaks, shares his insights on the extradition proceedings of Julian Assange. This interview is from the second week of the evidentiary hearings, which took place in September 2020.

WATCH: https://youtu.be/QRsAZ8Dia68?feature=shared

@taylorhudak

I have made it into the court house am waiting to enter the courtroom. Photos and video are not permitted in the court house.

I am in the courtroom in the front. It is full.

Assange hearing update: Mr. Assange, the defendant, is not present due to health reasons. The defense lawyer Fitzgerald addressed the court and outlined the several grounds for appeal. This includes ground 7, which states that it is a violated of article 4 of the US/UK extradition treaty and extradite for political offenses as in the case of Mr. Assange. Ground 5: Assange will not be protected by First Amendment rights and thus discriminated against since he is a foreign national. Ground 2: This is an unprecedented criminalisation of journalistic activity and the WikiLeaks published true info and was in public interest. (Court resumes now)

Defence laywer Fitzgerald is explaining in-depth why the extradition of Mr. Assange to the US must be prevented on the basis that the requesting state (the US) has charged him with political offenses - espionage. Under article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty it states extradition must be prevented if it is due to political offenses. The previous judges and their rulings cited domestic law - the UK Extradition Act of 2003, which does not include a clear provision that exempts extradition for political offenses. Fitzergerald argues that preventing extradition for political offenses is a historic principle enshrined in international extradition law.

The second defence lawyer Mark Summers is addressing the court. He is reflecting on the work of WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange that exposed high level state criminality, which went unchallenged went brought before the District Judge when presented during the initial extradition hearing.

Summers cited the State Dept. Cables, which disclosed extrajudicial assassination, renditions, torture, dark prisons, rogue killings. This evidence was relied upon by foreign courts to prove war crimes. The (Iraq) Rules of Engagement which were part of the release of the Collateral Murder video, which showed US soldiers killing innocent civilians in Iraq. The events depicted in the video were covered up by the US government.

Summers references the Guantanamo Assessment Briefs, which disclosed the fact that detainees were renditioned, and they were subjected to torture. The Afghan and Iraq War Diaries disclosed torture and war crimes. Assange was invited to speak at the EU Parliament and UN to speak about these publications.

In reference to section 81 of the UK Extradition Act of 2003, the question before the court is - is the prosecution motivated by a desire to silence Mr. Assange for his political opinions? The defence argues Mr. Assange is being prosecuted as a from of retaliation.

For reference. This is section 81 of the UK Extradition Act 2003.

Defense lawyer Mark Summers explains the many red flags in this case.

He asks, what triggered the US to prosecute Mr. Assange six years after the publications? What did this say about the state’s motivations? Why did the US government choose to indict in 2016/2017?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced it was preparing to investigate due to the revelations by Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Shortly after the ICC announced its intention to investigate, officials in the US publicly condemned Mr. Assange as a political actor. The ICC would need to rely on Assange to conduct the investigation. In 2017, then-director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, referred to WikiLeaks as a non state hostile intelligence agency.

Summers argued that the district judge erred in her judgment when did not take it into serious concern and considered it a “one-off.” However, this is in fact a phrase with legal significance. It encouraged and authorized hostility against Assange within the CIA.

We are on a lunch break and will return to court at 2pm.

Court has resumed. Mark Summers for the defence continues his arguments.

I am having some trouble hearing the defence arguments. All people with laptops were instructed to sit in the back of court due to noise from typing. I am seated several rows behind the lawyer and am doing my best to hear and understand.

Defence laywer Mark Summers argues that there is no evidence anyone has been harmed as a result of WikiLeaks publications. This was also addressed before the court at the first instance of extradition in February 2020.

Summers cites case law indicating that prosecuting a journalist for the obtaining and publishing classified material is unprecedented. And the risk of prosecution at the time of the publication of the material was unforeseeable.

The defence rests its case. Court is adjourned and will resume tomorrow.

I'll be on Redacted this evening to discuss the Julian Assange case. My interview from outside the court house on today's hearing will go live on Redacted at 9pm UK time/ 4pm US EST.

You can watch the interview here: https://youtube.com/@RedactedNews

Friends,

You can tune into Redacted in 10 minutes to hear the latest on Julian Assange from Taylor Hudak and Glenn Greenwald, and then a breakdown of the Fluoride lawsuit from me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do3Ect42VMU

Hi all, I have many new subscribers to this channel. Welcome! I will be back at the Royal Courts of Justice tomorrow to cover the second and final day of Julian Assange's hearing.

I will do my best to post updates to this channel and share videos and photos.

I have been covering the extradition hearings since the beginning and I tend to cover topics focused on human rights, free speech and law.

You can find my work at acTVism Munich, The Last American Vagabond and CHD Europe.

I also cover issues related to the COVID crisis and the mRNA injections. For the past year I dedicated most of my time to understanding how mRNA technology works. I prepared for an interview with a German pathologist, Prof. Arne Burkhardt, who was examining the autopsies of people who died shortly after vaccination. He was able to show with a high degree of certainty that the COVID injection was responsible for the death or disease in the patients. It is all explained in detail in our interview.

Unfortunately, this was Prof. Burkhardt last interview. He died a few weeks after we filmed.

Watch here: https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/arne-burkhardt-interview-12-23-23/