Why the Swiss people can save Julian Assange. #FreeAssange #Freedom for Assange #Wikileaks
Assange kidnapped at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London – Photo RT
From the time of his kidnapping at the embassy (11 April 2019), the silence around Julian Assange was deafening. Silence from the states, the press and even the legal team.
The summer of 2019, with no news, seemed interminable. For example, it was necessary for the human rights association Wikijustice, which I joined at the time, to reveal his prison number in broad daylight, so that letters finally reached him. In the meantime, we received a Morse code SOS on the back of a letter, which not only encourages us but also legally obliges us to continue to assist a person in danger.
Find the special file for the freedom of Julian Assange of Communist Initiative click here.
Then, the defense’s negligence finally broke out.
In September, to everyone’s amazement, Justice Baraitser even made fun of the fact that the lawyer had not filed an application for release:
“So I gave your lawyer the opportunity to file a bail application on your behalf and she refused to do so. Perhaps this is not surprising given your history of evading justice in these proceedings. »Judge Baraitser
For its part, as early as October 2019, the Swiss union Adetra (Association for the Defence of Workers), which is also very involved in Assange’s defence, expressed strong doubts about Mrs. Jennifer Robinson, the Australian prisoner’s most high-profile lawyer. She did not hesitate, then, to praise in the press the lawyer Amal Clooney , who had already represented Assange in the past but has since become part of the pro-democratic establishment, and above all had not hesitated to bend, a few months earlier, to the following masquerade: the organization, in July 2019, of a “World Conference on Media Freedom” organized by the British and Canadian governments a few kilometres from Belmarsh prison ! Let us not forget that the Democratic Party, of which Mrs Clooney and her husband are among the generous donors, has been the main accuser, within the state apparatus, against Assange for more than a decade !
 The decade around which the Swedish preliminary investigation was used relentlessly to slander Julian Assange, in order to discredit him in the public eye and remove all support for him. While Assange has never been accused of rape, nor charged with any crime, the investigation has provided the pseudo-judicial pretext to deny him any chance of rehabilitation.
Then came the scandal of conflicts of interest within law firms, relayed by the American investigative journalist Lucy Komisar and in French by the investigator who signs “basicblog”: these are lawyers involved in extradition cases on behalf of the United States, one of them, Alan Dershowitz, having even advocated the legalization of torture in the context of the war against terrorism.
More burlesque events such as Mr. Branco presenting himself to a detainee as no less than Mr. Assange’s lawyer when he had not yet been sworn in. 9] This is of course much more anecdotal, but it only adds to the confusion.
Duty of inventory or declaration of bankruptcy?
We are now in June 2020 and, at the time of the assessment, as the procedural exchanges  attest, no steps have been taken by the legal team to ask for the Australian journalist’s parole, except for one, because of Covid-19, a request that was immediately rejected. One wonders, moreover, whether it would be appropriate to base this long-awaited request solely on the reason for the virus, since the British authorities could well answer only on the health grounds.
No complaint has been filed by the legal team for torture, despite the fact that the (independent) expert of the special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council, Nils Melzer, had published a report on the torture of Julian Assange in May 2019. Opinion corroborated by former British diplomat Craig Murray and Karen U. Kwiatkowski, former lieutenant colonel of the US Air Force, former member of the NSA, and former analyst at the Pentagon, who even spoke of the use of BZ drugs in Belmarsh prison .  This non-lethal toxicological substance, officially banned at the international level by the Chemical Weapons Convention, caused a worrying deterioration in Assange’s state of health six months after his incarceration.
On 29 December 2019, it was still the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture who had to reiterate to the British government the serious violations of procedures, expressing concern about the conditions of detention and health of Julian Assange, and calling for his rapid release .
12] No complaint has been filed with the European Court of Human Rights, despite the fact that on 28 January 2020, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called on member states to oppose the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States and to decide on his prompt release.
13] No complaint has been filed to challenge Judge Arbuthnot (for conflict of interest) or even Judge Baraitser when the conditions of the hearing were deplorable: accused and journalists unable to hear questions because of closed microphones, appearance of the accused in a glass cage, like war criminals, unable to have confidentiality with his lawyers.
Why such a fiasco?
This very low level of activity contrasts with the plethora of lawyers who revolve around Julian Assange.
According to our information, the lawyers would be, even if this figure leaves one wondering, about a hundred. Who is paying? Have they all received a mandate from the principal interested party? We would have to distinguish between Assange’s lawyers and those of Wikileaks.
It would seem that the proxy is mainly the Courage Foundation, the foundation that collects funds for Julian Assange’s defense and which asks, very curiously, that we send our support checks directly to the country that has sworn its loss and is a master in the art of policing, as I had publicly astonished myself after being alerted by the activist and historian Monika Karbowska .
15] Courage is undoubtedly the provider of lawyers. According to Adetra, “the representative of the Courage Foundation in Switzerland also informed us that the lawyers’ fees come from the Courage Foundation. However, we do not know whether this information concerns all or part of Julian Assange’s legal team . »
Until 2018, Courage Corp. was headed until 2018 by a person who has not been heard from since December 2016 and who was none other than Assange’s companion and the person who assisted Snowden on his arrival at Moscow airport.
In any democratic system, a lawyer can always open prison doors. How is it that they have not been able to obtain greater access to Julian Assange, as they regularly complain?
The Adetra union, which is involved in this case in Switzerland, was surprised by what may appear to be a strategy on the part of the lawyers:
“In November and December 2019, two Adetra members asked the representative of the Courage Foundation in Switzerland (HRA) why Julian Assange’s London legal team was not seeking his release on bail. We were told that if Julian Assange was released, he was at risk of being kidnapped by American services! This answer was confirmed to us a few months later by another source . »
Finally got a strategy?
We would finally have an explanation for the inexplicable: our cohort of lawyers would see no other choice but between prison and death. And yet, we could take Churchill’s statements verbatim: “You had to choose between dishonour and war. You chose dishonour and you will have war. »
For choosing prison to avoid death, you might end up with death in prison.
This is what Mr. Melzer, the UN rapporteur on torture, said in black and white when he described the deadly nature of this incarceration on November 5:
“Mr. Assange’s health has entered an infernal spiral of progressive severe anxiety, stress and helplessness typical of people exposed to prolonged isolation and a regime of constant arbitrariness… While the precise evolution is difficult to predict with certainty, this pattern of symptoms can quickly turn into a potentially fatal situation involving cardiovascular failure or nervous collapse . »
It is therefore to be believed that the Covid undoubtedly proved to be a much more credible threat than the warnings of the UN representative or even the apprehensions in the face of the CIA’s twisted blows! To the point of justifying a request for conditional release, the only one filed so far. Sacred Covid, which would have had the virtue of confining half of the globe, except for one that it would have had released!
The only solution: take the international community to witness
Since my first article on this case (August 2019), I have adopted a policy of internationalizing the case and bringing it to the attention of all, with the support of the United Nations. In order to re-establish a minimum of international scrutiny.
I persist and sign.
The United Nations may have taken and sometimes does take controversial decisions, but the principles of the Charter are universal, stemming from the great victory of humanity against fascism.
Hope therefore also came from Switzerland, more precisely from the canton of Geneva, where 57 out of 77 parliamentarians voted in favour of obtaining a humanitarian visa.
It can be assumed that the British authorities, summoned to arrest Julian Assange on the basis of a request for mutual aid, are not necessarily delighted with the image they are giving. Switzerland would thus offer an honourable way out.
If Assange’s safety is neither guaranteed inside (the UN rapporteur’s thesis), nor outside the prison (the lawyers’ supposed thesis), what better way is there than to find him a sanctuary? Sanctuary that could be guaranteed by the Swiss people.
And which, for the time being, “would allow him to benefit from treatment at the University Hospitals of Geneva (HUG), specialized in the treatment of post-traumatic stress syndrome”, as Jean Rossiaud, the MP who is behind this initiative, pointed out.
Let the guns give way to the toga…
So, in order to respond to these supposed fears of the lawyers, is the CIA ready to assassinate Assange on Swiss territory, under the nose and beard of the Swiss citizens who have mandated their deputies to have him treated and who are endowed on their territory with the monopoly of legitimate violence that a state confers? What is more, a state jealous of its traditions of independence and neutrality? Obviously, anything is technically possible. But if the United States allows itself to do so, it is because we have gone one step further in fascization, and at this stage, insurrection is the most sacred of duties.
For the time being, let us uphold the Ciceronian adage: “Cedant arma togae”, let weapons give way to the toga.
Do we intend to challenge the courageous Swiss people’s right to welcome the Australian journalist? It amounts to the same argument that the Pétainists held during the war: by your acts of resistance, you are provoking the terrible reprisals of the occupier. With this argument, we would still be under the Nazi boot.
Nevertheless, this democratic approach competes with a request for asylum made in Switzerland, again by… guess who?… lawyers!
According to Adetra again:
“Two lawyers from German-speaking Switzerland, Andreas Noll and Philip Stolkin, are actively opposed to the humanitarian visa, even though the Geneva proposal to temporarily welcome Mr. Julian Assange at the Geneva University Hospitals represents the only effective possibility to date to allow him to leave prison in order to be treated . »
Would this competing demand partly explain why Switzerland has not yet taken a decision at the federal level?
There is no willingness on my part to doubt the good faith of these actions. But I would like to clarify what is at stake.
In principle, the approaches are not comparable.
On the one hand, you have the expression of the sovereign people, the people of the canton of Geneva, through their representatives, and on the other, a new initiative of the so-called “civil society”. Since Hegel, we know that the State, the people and civil society are in a dialectical relationship. No one says that civil society initiatives should be scorned.
But a civil society that claims to substitute itself for the popular will is unacceptable. We would then fall back into the “open society”, dear to George Soros, whose influence we see on Assange’s entourage (see my articles, passim) – even though he did not hesitate to reveal the actions of the so-called “philanthropist”. That is to say, the society open to the interested financing of the richest.
Moreover, the request for asylum, contrary to the request for a humanitarian visa made by the Parliament of the Canton of Geneva, would not even be legally relevant. Indeed, the humanitarian visa was created when the possibility of obtaining asylum from abroad was abolished . 20] To apply for asylum, it is therefore imperative to be on Swiss territory or at the Swiss border. Asylum can then constitute a second step, since applicants, after having received the humanitarian visa, obtain asylum in 100% of cases .
21] It is the will of the people and not of this or that Areopagus that must prevail in this case, because Julian embodies the democratic rights of all. The will of the people is currently being expressed in France in the insurrectionary plan. It has also been expressed in Geneva, where the people have not forgotten their ancestral democratic traditions and have not submitted to US pressure. The will of the people must prevail.
Aymeric Monville, 11 June 2020, Paris
Aymeric Monville is the author of ” Julian Assange en danger de mort “, éditions Delga, Paris, 2019, 3rd edition to be published at the end of June.
The author of this article would like to thank Isabelle Muller, Pindaro Hugo Guarin and Ivar Petterson of ADETRA for the information they were kind enough to provide.
. I am producing the issue on RT France on 28 September 2019. It will not be given by John Shipton until October. The nut number had not changed since he was first incarcerated.
9]. https://www.valeursactuelles.com/societe/exclusif-quand-juan-branco-ecrivait-salah-abdeslam-116341 and https://www.marianne.net/societe/c-est-un-exercice-illegal-quand-il-sollicite-le-terroriste-abdeslam-juan-branco-n-est-pas
Direct link to Nils Melzer’s letter to the British Government (unanswered as at 31 December 2019): http://bit.ly/2ZCygWA
Other initiatives are worth mentioning:
– On 16 April 2019, the European Parliament adopted by a large majority a new directive for whistleblowers.
– on 7 January 2020. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), which brings together 192 national human rights organisations in 112 countries, sent, together with the Ligue des droits de l’Homme France (LDH), an open letter to the attention of the British Ambassador to France.
. Aymeric Monville, on RT France, 29 January 2020. See also https://www.initiative-communiste.fr/articles/billet-rouge-2/pour-defendre-assange-envoyez-vos-dons-aux-etats-unis/
. In this regard, see the response of 11 June 2019 by Federal Councillor Karin Keller-Sutter to the parliamentary question of 5 June 2019 by National Councillor Carlo Sommaruga, legitimizing the humanitarian visa procedure:
“The issuance of a humanitarian permit presupposes that a cantonal authority has previously declared its willingness to grant a residence permit on this basis. Moreover, since the amendment of the Asylum Act of 28 September 2012, it is no longer possible to submit an asylum application abroad. However, any person whose life or physical integrity is directly, seriously and concretely threatened can submit an application for a humanitarian visa to a Swiss representation abroad. The application is examined in detail in the light of the regulations on entry into the national territory and the granting of visas, which presuppose a situation of particular distress requiring the intervention of the authorities and justifying the granting of an entry visa to Switzerland. As a general rule, the authorities consider that a person who is already in a safe third country is not directly threatened. In this case, there is no indication that Great Britain, the country in which Julian Assange is currently living, is not complying with its legal obligations. “(Note that this latter assertion is contradicted by Nils Melzer’s report on torture, n.d.a.).
. These points of law were confirmed to us by Adetra after it had checked them with Swiss lawyers.
Share the publication “Why the Swiss people can save Julian Assange. #FreeAssange #Freedom for Assange #Wikileaks”