|
Julian Assange: Damage To The Soul of a Nation
By Craig Murray
Jul 17, 2020 - 4:58:45 AM
https://www.sott.net/article/438197-Julian-Assange-Damage-to-the-soul-of-a-nation
Craig Murray
craigmurray.org.uk
Tue, 14 Jul 2020
© Getty Images
아산지 Julian Assange의 투옥은 심한 불의에 의해 가중된 심한 불공정의 표상이었으며, 공모한 주류언론 미디어와 교리화된 계층은 다른 방식으로 보입니다. 진정으로 특별하게 왜곡되버린 아산지 Assange는 현재 영국에서 제공되는 기소에 근거하여 추방되고 있으며, 이후에는 현재 아산지가 버지니아 주에서 직면한 실제 기소와는 실질적으로 다릅니다.
The imprisonment of Julian Assange has been a catalogue of gross injustice heaped upon gross injustice, while a complicit media and indoctrinated population looks the other way. In a truly extraordinary twist, Assange is now being extradited on the basis of an indictment served in the UK, which is substantially different to the actual indictment he now faces in Virginia if extradited.
아산지 Assange 청문회는 첫 주 만에 휴회되었으며, 그 후 재개는 코로나 바이러스에 의해 지연되었습니다. 그 첫 주 전체에 검찰과 국방은 기소에 대한 법적 주장을 요약했다. 수백만 명의 청중에게 자세히 보고한 바와 같이, Assange의 변호 팀은 그 청문회에서 기소의 주요 주장을 상당히 철회했습니다.
국방관련 사건에 대한 나의 보고서에서 발췌한 내용은 그 이후에 일어난 일과 특히 관련이 있습니다.
마크 서머스 Mark Summers QC는 방어를 위해 미국의 혐의는 전적으로 Assange 행동에 대한 세 가지 사실 고발에 전적으로 달려 있다고 밝혔다.
The Assange hearing was adjourned after its first full week, and its resumption has since been delayed by coronavirus. In that first full week, both the prosecution and the defence outlined their legal arguments over the indictment. As I reported in detail to an audience of millions, Assange's legal team fairly well demolished the key arguments of the prosecution during that hearing.
This extract from my report of the Defence case is of particular relevance to what has since happened:
1) 아산지 Assange는 매닝 Manning이 기밀 분류된 자료에 액세스하기 위해 해시 키 hash key를 해독하도록 도와주었습니다.
서머스는 이것이 매닝 법원의 법정 보완관 증거에서 나온 것으로 의심되는 주장이라고 밝혔다.
2) Assange은 매닝에서 자료를 요청했습니다.
서머스 (Summers)는 이 정보가 대중에게 공개된 정보에서 틀렸다고 밝혔다
3) 아산지가 의도적으로 생명을 위험에 빠뜨렸다는 주장
서머스Summers는 이것이 공개적으로 이용 가능한 정보와 미국 정부의 구체적인 참여로 인해 잘못되었다고 밝혔다.
요약하자면, Summers는 미국 정부가 위 주장에 대한 근거가 사실이 아니라는 것을 알고 있으며 악의적으로 말한 것을 알고 있다고 밝혔다. 따라서 이것은 프로세스 남용으로 인한 것이기에 인도 요청이 기각되어야 합니다. 그는 위 세 가지를 "쓰레기, 쓰레기 및 쓰레기"라고 설명했다.
그런 다음 서머스는 사건의 사실을 살펴 보았습니다. 그는 Manning이 Wikileaks로 유출한 자료를 미국의 청구에 따라서 세개 (1, 2, 3) 범주로 나누었다고 말했다.
a) 외교 케이블
b) 관타나모 수용자 평가서
c) 이라크 전쟁 참여 규칙
d) 아프가니스탄과 이라크 전쟁 기록
For the defence, Mark Summers QC stated that the USA charges were entirely dependent on three factual accusations of Assange behavior:
1) Assange helped Manning to decode a hash key to access classified material.
Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial.
2) Assange solicited the material from Manning
Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public
3) Assange knowingly put lives at risk
Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement of the US government.
In summary, Summers stated the US government knew that the allegations being made were false as to fact, and they were demonstrably made in bad faith. This was therefore an abuse of process which should lead to dismissal of the extradition request. He described the above three counts as "rubbish, rubbish and rubbish".
Summers then walked through the facts of the case. He said the charges from the USA divide the materials leaked by Manning to Wikileaks into three categories:
a) Diplomatic Cables
b) Guantanamo detainee assessment briefs
c) Iraq War rules of engagement
d) Afghan and Iraqi war logs
그런 다음 서머스는 체계적으로 a), b), c) 및 d)를 각각 1), 2) 및 3) 혐의 범주와 관련시켜 12 차례의 설명과 박람회를 진행했습니다. 이 포괄적인 설명에는 약 4 시간이 걸렸으며 여기에서 캡처하려고 시도하지 않습니다. 차라리 강조할 것이지만, 주장된 행동 수 및 / 또는 주장된 자료 서한과 가끔 관련될 것입니다. 나는 당신이 그것을 따르기를 바랍니다 - 그렇게 하는데 시간이 걸렸습니다!
Summers then methodically went through a), b), c) and d) relating each in turn to alleged behaviours 1), 2) and 3), making twelve counts of explanation and exposition in all. This comprehensive account took some four hours and I shall not attempt to capture it here. I will rather give highlights, but will relate occasionally to the alleged behaviour number and/or the alleged materials letter. I hope you follow that - it took me some time to do so!
1) 서머스에 긴 길이의 변론에서 매닝 Manning이 각 자료에 액세스 할 수 있다는 결론을 내 렸습니다. a) b) c) d) Assange의 코드없이 Wikileaks에 제공되었으며 Assange에 연락하기 전에 액세스 할 수있었습니다. Manning은 정보 분석가를위한 데이터베이스 인 Manning이 수천 명의 다른 사람들이 액세스 할 수있는 것처럼 업무용 군용 컴퓨터에서 액세스하기 위해 사용자 이름이나 암호를 요구하지 않았기 때문에 자신의 신원을 감추기위한 코드가 필요하지 않았습니다. 서머스 Summers는 이를 확인하기 위해 Manning의 법원 무술에서 여러 장교의 증언을 인용했습니다. 또한 시스템의 시스템 관리자 코드를 위반하면 Manning이 추가로 분류 된 데이터베이스에 액세스 할 수 없습니다. 서머스 Summers는 Manning 법정 무술에서 증거를 인용했는데, 이것이 승인 된 곳에서 Manning이 시스템 관리자에게 들어 가고자하는 이유는 군인들이 비디오 게임과 영화를 정부 랩탑에 올려 놓는 것이 허용 되었기 때문입니다.
On 1) Summers at great length demonstrated conclusively that Manning had access to each material a) b) c) d) provided to Wikileaks without needing any code from Assange, and had that access before ever contacting Assange. Nor had Manning needed a code to conceal her identity as the prosecution alleged - the database for intelligence analysts Manning could access - as could thousands of others - did not require a username or password to access it from a work military computer. Summers quoted testimony of several officers from Manning's court-martial to confirm this. Nor would breaking the systems admin code on the system give Manning access to any additional classified databases. Summers quoted evidence from the Manning court-martial, where this had been accepted, that the reason Manning wanted to get in to systems admin was to allow soldiers to put their video-games and movies on their government laptops, which in fact happened frequently.
치안판사 버레이처 Baraitser는 두 번 큰 중단을 일으켰습니다. 그녀는 첼시 매닝이 자신이 데이터베이스를 다운로드한 사용자로 추적될 수 없다는 것을 알지 못한다면 Assange의 도움을 받아 자신의 신분을 무지에서 숨기고 코드를 해독하여 도움을 요청했을 수 있음을 발견했습니다. 이는 여전히 아산지 Assange의 공격론 입니다.
Magistrate Baraitser twice made major interruptions. She observed that if Chelsea Manning did not know she could not be traced as the user who downloaded the databases, she might have sought Assange's assistance to crack a code to conceal her identity from ignorance she did not need to do that, and to assist would still be an offence by Assange.
서머스 Summers는 Manning이 실제로 모든 자료에 액세스하지 않았기 때문에 사용자 이름과 비밀번호가 필요하지 않다는 것을 알았습니다. 버레이처 Baraitser는 이것이 추적할 수 없다는 것을 증명하는 증거는 아니라고 대답했다. 서머스는 논리적으로 사용자 ID와 비밀번호가 없는 사용자 ID와 비밀번호를 숨기는 코드를 찾고 있다고 주장하는 것은 말이 되지 않는다고 말했다. Baraitser는 다시 대답했다. 이 시점에서 Summers는 Baraitser와 함께 다소 간결해졌고 법원의 보안관 증거를 다시 그녀에게 가져갔습니다. 어느 것이 더 효과가 있을런지는 ...
Summers pointed out that Manning knew that she did not need a username and password, because she actually accessed all the materials without one. Baraitser replied that this did not constitute proof she knew she could not be traced. Summers said in logic it made no sense to argue that she was seeking a code to conceal her user ID and password, where there was no user ID and password. Baraitser replied again he could not prove that. At this point Summers became somewhat testy and short with Baraitser, and took her through the court martial evidence again. Of which more...
Baraitser also made the point that even if Assange were helping Manning to crack an admin code, even if it did not enable Manning to access any more databases, that still was unauthorised use and would constitute the crime of aiding and abetting computer misuse, even if for an innocent purpose.
Now while there is no evidence that Judge Baraitser is giving any serious consideration to the defence case, what this has done is show the prosecutors the holes in their argument which would cause them serious problems should they get Julian to trial in the United States. In particular, they are wary of the strong freedom of speech protections in the US constitution and so are desperate to portray Julian as a hacker, and not a journalist. But, as you can see above, their case for this is not looking strong.
So the prosecution needed a different case. They have therefore entirely changed the indictment against Julian in Virginia, and brought in a superseding indictment.
As you can see, this is about switching to charges firmly grounded in "hacking", rather than in publishing leaks about appalling American war crimes. The new indictment is based on the evidence of a "supergrass", Sigurdur Thordarson, who was acting a a paid informant to the FBI during his contact with Wikileaks.
Thordarson is fond of money and is a serial criminal. He was convicted on 22 December 2014 by Reykjanes District Court in Iceland of stealing over US $40,000 and over 13,000 euro from Wikileaks "Sunshine Press" accounts by forging documents in the name of Julian Assange, and given a two year jail sentence. Thordarson is also a convicted sex offender, and was convicted after being turned in to the police by Julian Assange, who found the evidence - including of offences involving a minor - on Thordarson's computer.
[Updated 13.45 to add detail of Thordarson's convictions].
There appears scope to doubt the motives and credentials of the FBI's supergrass.
The FBI have had Thordarson's "Evidence" against Assange since long before the closing date for submissions in the extradition hearing, which was June 19th 2019. That they now feel the need to deploy this rather desperate stuff is a good sign of how they feel the extradition hearing has gone so far, as an indicator of the prospects of a successful prosecution in the USA.
This leaves the UK extradition in a state of absolute farce. I was involved in discussion with Wikileaks about what would happen when the superseding indictment was introduced at the procedural hearing last month. It ought not to have been accepted - it is over a year since the closing date, and a week of opening arguments on the old indictment have already been heard. The new indictment is plainly designed to redress flaws in the old one exposed at the hearing.
The superseding indictment also is designed to counter defence witness affidavits which have been disclosed to the prosecution, including expert witness testimony which refutes the indictment on Assange's alleged hacking assistance to Manning - until now the sole ground of the "hacking" accusation. This switch, we averred, was an outrageous proposition. Was the whole hearing to start again on the basis of the new indictment?
Then, to our amazement, the prosecution did not put forward the new indictment at the procedural hearing at all. To avoid these problems, it appears they are content to allow the extradition hearing to go ahead on the old indictment, when that is not in fact the indictment which awaits Assange in the United States. This is utterly outrageous. The prosecution will argue that the actual espionage charges themselves have not changed. But it is the indictment which forms the basis of the extradition hearing and the different indictment which would form the basis of any US prosecution.
To have extradition decided on the merits of one indictment when the accused actually faces another is an outrage. To change the indictment long after the hearing is underway and defence evidence has been seen is an outrage. The lack of media outrage is an outrage.
None of which will come as any shock to those of us who have been paying attention. We have to continue to build public consciousness of the fact that the annihilation of a journalist for exposing war crimes, based on a catalogue of state lies and dodgy procedure, is not an act that the state can undertake without damage to the very soul of the nation.
|