A few days before the London’s 20/21th February hearings on Julian Assange’s extradition to the USA, Le Monde Diplomatique couldn’t avoid mentioning the political prisoner’s situation. The monthly journal thus opted for the easy-way, translating an article issued by the Anglo-American writer-reporter Charles Glass. Does this second-hand approach absolve the magazine from checking the credibility of Glass’s words? Certainly not, and even less so when stupid nonsense is among them.
Before turning to Charles Glass’s story, let’s set the record straight. Since Assange’s expulsion from his London hideaway, a tiny diplomatic retreat ordinarily referred to as the “Ecuadorian Embassy“, citizens with access to any semblance of truth are so rare that the said embassy may house them all without major promiscuity concerns.
Members of the human rights organization WikiJustice Julian Assange (WJJA here-under), have crossed the English Channel in all weathers, bus-boat or bus-tunnel depending on sea flows, to attend no less than 27 « justice » hearings Julian has endured since April 17, 2019. WJJA can thus attest that no journalist from Le Monde, Mediapart, Libération, Le Figaro, L’Obs… has ever been attending any of them. As if journalism could report, from a distance, on what’s going on, what’s being said, what’s being plotted, in one of the most obscure and outrageous affairs the « free » world has ever inflicted on us.
Forbidden truth
A little less disciplined than the other big press organs, a little more decent, Le Monde Diplo nonetheless respects the absolute rule, emanating from who knows what higher or divine authority, political or mafia related, consisting in proscribing any serious research into the truths surrounding the Affair, and in fine never calling to account the instigators of the ruthless hunt for one man.
So what’s the first truth we discover when coming face to face with realities, the places (courts, prison buildings, « embassies », London districts…), the protagonists (« defense » lawyers, judges or « judges », Assange’s relatives or « relatives »…)?
Answer: nothing resembles a normal judicial process, no lawyer seems to act or express himself as a lawyer of integrity, in a word, EVERYTHING inspires distrust, perplexity and doubt. The freshly “deflowered“ citizens we are (I myself have attended several hearings) deduce that we must do the work of lawyers and journalists ourselves, and rely only on elements on which we have formal and undeniable proof.
For example, to believe immediately any testimony is out of question, such as that of Charles Glass, who recounts his » Visit to Belmarsh prison » on » December 13 « , 2023, published at first by The Nation.
At first glance, the subject appears banal. However, there is a major problem: almost five years after his incarceration, there is NO formal proof, no signed public document attesting to Julian Assange’s presence in Belmarsh prison. This shortcoming would be secondary, were it not for the hundreds of serious and appalling anomalies marring the so-called judicial process, and beyond.
What’s more, all our repeated attempts to obtain permission to visit have failed, not because Julian Assange refused, but because » the dates and times chosen are not suitable « .
Note: The prisoners build their own visitor’s list; many of us sent letters to Assange in due form requiring him to add our name in his list. If not done (letters not delivered, or no action from him), then the Belmarsh rationale should have been “You can’t visit because your name is not in prisoner’s visitor list”…
No less significant is the reply from the « Business Manager to the Executive Director » of Belmarsh prison, D. Harding, addressed to the WJJA association in November 2019, following its request to certify Julian Assange’s conditions of detention.
Mr Harding is “unable to comment specifically on Mr Assange « , without explaining why. We therefore have two types of official and indisputable documentation (the only ones made public on this issue), which open up the possibility that » Mr Assange » is not being held at Belmarsh.
The only semblance of « proof » of his presence at Belmarsh are the testimonies of those close to him, or supposedly close to him, who are supposed to have visited » Julian « , generally given in front of the prison in front of the invited journalists, delivering their pathos on his state of health or on an abstract freedom of expression that has been violated, without ever citing a substantiated statement or protest from Assange’s mouth.
Following in the footsteps of Pamela Anderson, Kristin Hrafnsson, Chinese artist Weiwei…, Charles Glass is just the most recent self-declared visitor. Let’s take a look at the credibility of the information contained in his article.
The writer-reporter-traveler stands out for his efforts to describe the context of visits to Belmarsh. Greeted » in the single-story Visitors Center to the left of the prison, as bleak a 1950s-style lunchroom as any depicted by Edward Hopper« , Charles Glass would be led into the visiting hall : « Julian and I sit down, face to face, me on the red chair, he on one of the blues. Above us, glass globes hide cameras that record the interactions… ».
On this point, the author can’t be mistaken, the photo of the hall having been published in a public report. The place is surprisingly open and cosy, with a » snack bar » serving » hot chocolates « , sandwiches and other agro-industrial snacks.
The Big Bad Belmarsh
The relentless censorship of Belmarsh’s gaolers makes his altruistic readers shudder with indignation, as he recounts his failure to pass books on to Assange. His latest autographed essay on » the history of a psychiatric hospital for officers « , a perfect distraction for solitary confined readers, is refused because the addition of any personal writing is against the rules; it does not come up to Glass’ mind to tear out the offending page… Following Glass’s advice, Assange is said to have fought hard to obtain an FM radio that is now broken: « Does he want my help to persuade them to fix or replace the broken plug? No, it would just make unnecessary trouble for him.«
Apart from these secondary events the narrative is full of, it seems that the detainee Assange never has anything serious to say about his own defense, as if he were watching from afar the throes of his own persecution, a spectator of his fate. Or has he lost all of his intellectual and sensory faculties? Charles Glass doesn’t open the subject for a second. Still, he finds him » pale « , which earns us Julian Assange’s only line in quotation marks (which, in theory, is a guarantee of authenticity and accuracy):
» They call it prison pale « .
Who wouldn’t recognize the politician Assange in this long diatribe?
The penultimate paragraph is well worth a quote:
» The regime is punitive; although Belmarsh’s 700-odd inhabitants are on remand, awaiting trial or appeal. They are Category A prisoners, those who “pose the most threat to the public, the police or national security” and stand accused of terrorism, murder, or sexual violence. »
Glass adds up falsehoods. He gives the correct definition of category A criminals, who are often placed for reasons of dangerousness in the High Security Unit (HSU); this unit does not, however, contain » some 700 residents « , but only 47 (official figures for 2021), separated from four other units populated by 628 people, a quarter of whom are convicted of » short sentences « , others are on remand… In all, a fifth of Belmarsh’s occupants are from category A, among whom less than half are in the High Security Unit.
Mr Glass’s stereotypical narrative wobbles. At first, a « punitive regime » would only generate violence and anarchy, it is called either a forced labour penal colony or a concentration camp, and it only « works » through extreme repression; second, as we’ve just seen, Belmarsh is not an isolated bastion teeming with wild beasts tamed by henchmen armed with sabres and whips. Drowning in clichés and anecdotes, Reporter Glass can’t even tell us whether » Julian » is housed with the most dangerous individuals (and why is that?), or whether he’s being held in the more conventional units.
To top it all off, he brings out the mantra established as a tradition by the litany of visitors : » He has not been outdoors—apart from a minute when police dragged him into a paddy wagon— […], his abode since April 11, 2019, he has not seen the sun. Warders confine him to a cell for 23 out of every 24 hours. His single hour of recreation takes place within four walls, under supervision. «
Here we go again, the famous « 23 hours« . Four whole years of this regime is no longer torture, it’s the murder of body and mind combined. Mr. Glass coldly spells out the monstrosities, without indirect indignation at best, without ever invoking the law. He describes torture without naming it.
Glass strongest words are: “His paleness is best described as deathly « . So what? Did he file a complaint against torture to Belmarsh governor, or check out with his pal’s lawyers what they are F**g doing to stop this mess? No sign of this, at all.
Belmarsh is not Guantanamo, lost in a Cuba’s dead end. You can’t, like the US hawks, pretend to set up a » legal black hole « , a stone’s throw from London, and quietly practice years long torture there.
In order to break up the myth of the BBB (Big Bad Belmarsh) once and for all, we have at our disposal the inspection reports from HMIP, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (Her now His since the advent of another Charles, III). The prisoners’ questionnaire provides a factual comparison of out-of-cell time at the « BBB » and Liverpool’s category B prison, i.e. one without any High security section.
See Belmarsh 2018 report here, Liverpool 2017 report here.
The average daily weekday out of cell time is 3 hours for the former, and 3 hours and a quarter for Liverpool. The slight difference can be explained by the number of inmates volunteering for paid work, which is more interesting in Liverpool (upholstering), than the non-technical jobs proposed in Belmarsh; the 2-to-6-hour exit slot is identical, concerning 39% versus 38% of respondents, and the less-than-2-hour slot appears quite significant in both cases (47% versus 43%). However, a non-negligible criterion is the desire of some prisoners not to mix with other prisoners; moreover, we’re talking about averages, so each prisoner occasionally spends more time outside than the announced range.
The other discriminating factor concerns access to educational programs (English language/mathematics upgrading, preparation for professional reintegration, etc.), for which the resources deployed are similar between the two prisons, the HMIP inspectorate’s assessments being identical point by point between Liverpool and Belmarsh, ranging from « inadequate » to « requires improvement« .
It seems that a general deterioration has been affecting British prisons for a decade, but this is due more to the means granted by the State than to the will of the managers. Indeed, Assange’s relatives would do better to call the government to account for the deterioration affecting all prisoners, thereby showing their loyalty to Julian Assange’s altruistic ethic, rather than spouting nonsense about Belmarsh.
With the Big Bad one having lost most of her Superbe, let’s see what she’s got to say, British law.
The (losing) blathering strategy
Assange’s sworn defenders whine incessantly, without ever invoking the rights or the Law. It’s a pity. Indeed, it is quite useful, and even inspiring, especially in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which evokes it so well, the law.
Article 6: The law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to participate personally, or through their representatives, in its formation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. […]
The feeling is not strictly identical while reading Prison Act 1952, which forms the modern backbone of British prison law. Section 47 of the Act states that » The Secretary of State may make rules for the regulation and management of prisons « , having resulted in the Prison Rules 1999, the most concrete version of the legal rules governing British prisons today.
Section 49 of the Prison Rules defines the regime for prisoners » under restraint « , of which paragraphs 1 and 4 are of particular interest to us:
1. The governor may order a prisoner to be put under restraint where this is necessary to prevent the prisoner from injuring himself or others, damaging property or creating a disturbance.
[…].
4. A prisoner shall not be kept under restraint longer than necessary […].
It is absolutely clear that keeping a prisoner in a cell for 23 hours a day, over a long period of time, is a fortiori a restraint regime (although this must be specified by law, which we will do later). The only potential criterion of » constraint » attributable to Julian Assange would be that of » injuring himself « , but in this case the constraint of sequestration is harmful, in view of out of cell time when the prisoner is closely monitored, and therefore less likely to « injure himself » than to relax, and thus ultimately reduce the tendency to self-harm. What’s more, the time constraint (no » longer than necessary « ) is an additional protective threshold which, if we are to believe Mr. Glass’ claims (and those of Pamela Anderson, Weiwei, John Shipton…), would have been heavily transgressed by the prison warden.
Glass is not entirely wrong, in that there is indeed a punitive clause, albeit individualized and framed by article 55 entitled « Governor’s Punishments » (emphasis added):
– If he finds a prisoner guilty of an offence against discipline, the governor may… impose one or more of the following punishments:
(a) caution
…
(e) cellular confinement for a period not exceeding 14 days;
(f) in the case of a short-term or long-term prisoner, an award of additional days not exceeding 42 days..;
–
If Assange had committed an » offence against discipline « , his punishment could not legally have lasted longer than 14 days. It is interesting to note that other types of punishment (deprivation of « associated work … ») can be extended up to « 42 days « , compared with a maximum of 14 days for isolation in a cell, which shows the authorities’ full awareness of the physical and psychological consequences of prolonged confinement.
Two other protective laws would be violated if Charles Glass is telling the truth; let’s recall his words: « … since April 11, 2019, he has not seen the sun. Warders confine him to a cell for 23 out of every 24 hours. His single hour of recreation takes place within four walls, under supervision. »
Article 30: If the weather permits and subject to the need to maintain good order and discipline, a prisoner shall be given the opportunity to spend time in the open air at least once every day, for such period as may be reasonable in the circumstances..
Article 29 paragraph 1: If circumstances reasonably permit, a prisoner aged 21 years or over shall be given the opportunity to participate in physical education for at least one hour a week.
The potential list of strict violations of the law is growing, as is the list of claims and complaints that Assange’s whiners and, above all, his lawyers should have addressed to the prison administration long ago, making public its answers or non-answers, in order to bring popular pressure to bear in the face of (yet another) crime in the making.
It will not have escaped the reader’s attention that restraints and punishments are decided by the » governor » of the prison, who is not a strange being from the abyss, with pointed ears and a rough red tail, but a civil servant with rights and duties; the current one is not as easy to find as your hairdresser shop, but not far, and she even has a name, Jenny Louis.
In the event of a prisoner being placed under restraint, governor has the final say, but its » order must be communicated without delay to a member of the Board of Visitors and to the Chief Medical Officer… », the latter being required » to inform the Governor if there are medical reasons why the prisoner should not be subjected to restraint measures « (article 49).
Finally, article 11 allows each prisoner to » address to the Governor or to the independent supervisory board any request or complaint relating to his incarceration « , and requires the Governor to » take them into consideration as soon as possible… ».
Such an avalanche of violations of Julian Assange’s rights, and of possible remedies and related responses, against a backdrop of physico-psychic torture denounced by the UN Special Rapporteur Niels Melzer as early as the end of May 2019, has never been the subject of legal action by the defense. It’s an indisputable fact: never during the thirty hearings before the judges did Assange’s lawyers cite any prison law text, mention any complaint to the prison administration, question the Governor of Belmarsh Jenny Louis or her predecessor Rob Davis, or question the Secretary of State for Justice, on whom the prison system depends.
The Case in Depth
The stark contrast between the Charles Glass’ like outcry against the Big Bad Belmarsh, and the total passivity of Assange’s » lawyers « , raises questions.
If, in the summer of 2019, this observation gave my comrades and me profound indignation, the repetition of this same pattern four years later forces us to cross the wall, not of lamentations, but of absurdity.
A final aspect of this inexplicable passivity is the ease with which a small French association, WJJA, was able to obtain a written response from a senior manager at Belmarsh prison, Denis Harding, engaging his responsibility in a signed letter (see above). WJJA published it and sent it directly to Assange’s » defense » team and the entire press, with no reaction other than silence. Here is a second extract:
Mr Harding recalls not only the minimum legal requirements for detainees of » 2 hours a day out of their cells and 30 minutes in the open air », but also the commitment to support them in their » rehabilitation » efforts, as well as to provide for their » medical and mental health needs « .
But what does all this matter, you may ask, compared to the danger of extradition to the United States?
And finally, aren’t these targeted exaggerations, lies, half-lies, nonsense and incantations part of a communication strategy adopted by Assange’s inner circle to appease the public and mobilize them to his defense?
[ First of all, I’m not interested in pure speculation; whether the » inner circle » are acting freely, or under pressure from Assange’s persecutors, or pretending to be somebody they’re not, is a secondary question. On the other hand, it is strange, even suspicious, that the entire press actors, including those not subject to the big time financiers, constantly report as if Assange’s » lawyers » and close associates were all acting freely, without pressure, without bias, while colossal means are being put in place to muzzle the whistle-blower. Can you be the best informed people and be the most naïve in same place? ]
After four years and ten months of incarceration, the most glaring observation is the complete disappearance of the former Julian Assange – combative, reflective, political, pacifist, loquacious, altruistic – alive and embodied.
At the time of the fight of his life, and for his life, he ceases to exist.
» Julian » is ghostified, even in the stories of his » visitors « .
Victim of an intolerable denial of justice characteristic of a dictatorial regime, Julian Assange has been denied the most crucial right in a political trial: that of expressing himself at hearings, of being heard, of defending himself without intermediaries. Of the thirty hearings related to his extradition, he was physically present at five, locked in a glass cage like a criminal. One of the only audible sentences he uttered was the enigmatic » they stole my DNA children« , and at the crucial Woolwich Court sessions of February 24-27, 2020, he exchanged written papers with his lawyers, reduced to communicating from the bottom of his cage through reproving or rebellious body language. Over the course of three days, he was heard painfully pronouncing his date of birth, his name, and for a moment of rebellion, he protested out of spite, causing a recess; beside that, he was never able to argue in the face of the charges. The WJJA observers testified to this, as to the fact that the lawyers never invited their client to speak before the judge (see Monika Karbowska’s 27 court reports ).
Some may say that it would have been better if he hadn’t spoken at all, given his deplorable condition (see the WJJA physician’s report); quite the contrary. On the one hand, his state of consciousness was variable, and no one knows what important statements he might have made; on the other hand, this was an opportunity to highlight the unacceptable treatment he was undergoing, and for the lawyers to impose an adjournment of the sham trial, before judge and citizen witnesses in open court, until Julian Assange regained the state of health adequate to his defence.
Obviously, the lawyers could not act in this way without having first lodged a complaint against the prison administration, without having noted the absence of effect of these complaints… which clearly did not happen. Moreover, the lawyers have never invoked, for example, Article 6 on the « Right to a Fair Trial » of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR – the Brexit has in no way disassociated Britain from the ECHR, since this body is not directly dependent on the EU), stipulating that » Every accused person has the right, in particular, to defend himself… ». XX
The impact of the statements made by Assange’s visitors can only be fully understood by tracing this context, with the median perception summed up as follows: if Assange is unable to express himself, it’s the fault of the very abstract Big Bad Belmarsh, against which nothing can be done, since it’s not a liable person bound by laws. It is Fatality. And since Assange is fatally diminished, the importance of the denial of justice – muzzling him in a glass cage – is relativized, since ultimately, if he were to express himself in this state, it wouldn’t make much difference, or even worsen his case.
The citizen doesn’t realize that the chain of responsibility is thus totally short-circuited, as he or she is fed a steady stream of incantatory and ineffective indignation.
The story of Nelson Mandela demonstrates that it is possible to spend 27 years in captivity while retaining most of his physical and mental capacities, and this in the jails of South African apartheid.
In certain respects, living conditions were potentially more favorable at Belmarsh prison than at the Ecuadorian » embassy « , where Julian was not allowed to go out into the open air, nor to engage in any significant physical or sporting exercise. In 2010, journalists from The Independent were granted access to Belmarsh’s high-security wing, giving an account of a daily life that knocks you off your chair:
« The day starts at 8.10am. They have 20 minutes for breakfast, an hour of outdoor exercise, an hour to use the gym, and have to clean the wing for half an hour a day. The rest of the time spent out of their cells – five hours – is « association » time. During this period, they can chat with each other, play pool or table football, watch TV or use the rowing machine or exercise bike which sit on the wing. »
The reality is undoubtedly embellished – the HMIP reports prove it – but Assange would have benefited from a fraction of these conditions, that he could have practically prepared his mind and his defence.
The Puzzle Enigma
Failing to attack the penitentiary, his lawyers could have gotten him out – their client – of the penitentiary… By September 2019, he had served his 25-week sentence imposed for breach of parole, when he took refuge in the Ecuadorian » embassy « . An Guardian article recounts the September 13 hearing at Westminster court:
// « District Judge Vanessa Baraitser told him: You have been produced today because your sentence of imprisonment is about to come to an end. When that happens your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.
« Therefore I have given your lawyer an opportunity to file a bail application on your behalf and she has declined to do so […].
» In my view I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again.
Assange was asked if he understood what was happening. He replied [via video link]: « Not really. I’m sure the lawyers will explain it. » //
End of quote. Unlike the others, this hearing was not announced, nor was it covered by any French media (neither Le Monde, nor legrandsoir.info which is following the case closely, nor any). At the time, the litigator was Gareth Peirce. She was conspicuously absent from this crucial hearing where Julian Assange’s freedom was at stake!!?? And he’s wrong, the lawyers aren’t going to explain ANYTHING. It’s the WikiLeaks X account that pretends to do so, explaining in a single tweet (!!), that « The magistrate » (Judge Baraitser?) would have deceived them.
From the absurd we move on to a mix of grotesque and sordid, with this three-way ping-pong game on a muddy carpet, or a schoolyard game of « it’s not me, it’s you, na! », except we’re talking about a man’s life. One thing’s for sure, the ostrich prize goes to lawyer Gareth Peirce, not seen, not taken, not heard, neither during nor after her client’s non-release. Incidentally, the Guardian’s over-short article, copied and pasted into several English-language newspapers, is so poorly contextualized that we can only guess at the lawyer’s absence.
So, did she » decline » to release her client, or not, Miss Peirce? Is Judge Baraitser lying or not? Hum, well, we won’t know, Miss Peirce is too » busy » to receive the WJJA correspondent who turned up at her chambers the following week (read here), and not a single journalist will ask her the question, how convenient.
Let’s be serious. If the Court and its judges (Baraitser, Arbuthnot…) have deviated from the procedure to trick the lawyers, the lawyers either rise to the occasion and cause a scandal, Gareth Peirce in front, or they lie down at the feet of the persecutors; in view of the published facts, the lawyers have laid down, without having to express the slightest justification, thanks to the intervention of WikiLeaks.
In the Assange Affair, these supernatural episodes are the rule, not the exception. And what’s most astounding is the general lack of reaction, as if you were still quietly shopping during an earthquake, while slabs of the supermarket ceiling keep crashing to the ground all around you.
A scene in the same vein took place at Woolwich Court, during the February 2020 extradition process. This time we have the richly human and acute vision of the WJJA envoy, the exact opposite of the truncated and robotized media transcripts.
On February 26, « we attend to Mark Summers plea refuting the prosecution’s case. Julian Assange is visibly much weaker, watching the events motionless and prostrate. »
« At 3 p.m. the extraordinary happens: just as the prosecutor is blocked in his tracks by a misplaced document, Julian Assange stands up and speaks. We are stupefied, he has broken the rules, he rebels, he insists. Judge Baraitser cuts him off and tells him « what you are asking for is not customary, you must speak through your lawyer ».
« In discussion we reconstructed what Julian Assange said: he complained about his condition, about being surrounded by a guard on each side…. He says he’s exhausted and can’t concentrate… In fact, we know it’s worse… Impressed by the prisoner’s revolt, Baraitser suspends the hearing. »
« Then the second extraordinary thing happens: Judge Baraitser suggests that he instead « make an application for bail »! »
« … We will stand firmly to verify that the lawyers will file the application for bail tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. as the judge invited them to do. »
[…]
. « To my great surprise and disappointment there is no mention of any request for release, despite what the judge had decided the day before. »
« I am speechless. How can procedures be violated at such a point? If a court of law decides on an act, it must be carried out. If the lawyers don’t file the request for release, they have to say it out loud in court, and the judge has to act and justify his refusal of the request formally. But nothing of the sort happens.
History repeats itself, but in the long run, one and one make three rather than two, so to speak; scientists say » more is different » to describe a phenomenon of accumulation leading to a change not only in quantity, but also in kind.
In the Assange case, the proliferation of anomalies of all kinds – professional deviance, behavioural deviance, procedural deviance, legal deviance, the perfect alignment of media stars from distant galaxies… – transforms the very notion of « mock trial » into a whole new meaning.
Subtracting the term « trial » and retaining only the mockery, up to a wider scope Simulacrum, brings us closer to reality, a reality we’ve sought out as close as possible to the scene and its protagonists. A grand, life-size, open-air theater of illusions is what we see. In place of procedural flaws, there would in fact be no procedure at all.
A parallel process, dissociated from the judicial procedure governed by the law, a freewheeling process where only the illusion of a connection to justice remains. Objectively speaking, after years of trying to put together the jumbled pieces of the multi-dimensional puzzle, the option of a bare simulacrum is the most rational and reasonable solution to the problem.
Which brings us back to the introduction of this article: where the absence of undeniable proof used to impose doubt, now the most reasonable attitude is no longer the remaining doubt, but the radical exclusion of the doubtful element.
Taken one by one, the elements in view vary in importance. The micro-puzzle piece introduced by Charles Glass is Lilliputian, but nothing is to be neglected. The question is whether to file it in the folder marked « Doubtful » in the investigation file, or throw it in the garbage can. The decision is easy, given the amateurishness of the verifiable content (multiple strictly false assertions), combined with the anecdotal nature of the unverifiable, poorly reliable and minor interest content; garbage is the right place.
Of course, this is not enough to invalidate the underlying message of the Glass piece, inscribed in the big Official Piece: « Assange is detained in Belmarsh ».
The limited scope of this article does not allow us to conclude whether or not this Piece is excluded. Let’s just say that the negative piece “Assange is not in Belmarsh“fits easily into the alternative puzzle of the Simulacrum, a necessary but not sufficient condition. In a prison, it’s terribly complicated to isolate a man from his fellow inmates; he can pass messages to sympathetic guards; if you want to censor his mail, you need to create a specific branch with reliable manpower, not so simple… While the primary objective was to silence him, which was successfully accomplished, almost flawlessly, for four years. If you really want to weaken him, isolate him illegally to the limits of his resistance, or drug him, good luck managing the entire guarding chain, and ensuring the complete loyalty of prison management and the sometimes renewed prison governors, who, what’s more, take the lion’s share of the legal blame in the event of a turnaround.
It is therefore quite rational to fear that Julian Assange is not being held in Belmarsh, but in a secret prison (example: some discreet, guarded house), a practice carried out by the CIA assisted by MI6 in the years 2005-2010, as part of the » extraordinary renditions » during which suspected terrorists were held incommunicado in Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Egypt or Morocco, to undergo « enhanced interrogations »…. And it is no less natural that the human rights association WJJA, originally set up to defend Julian Assange’s rights, should have tried to obtain proof of his place of detention from the authorities – without never ever receiving any proof.
The supernatural is not to be found herein, turning on the TV is enough. Journalist Ulysse Gosset gives us a good dose of it, following Navalny’s death in front of a Russian diplomat who refers to the persecution of an Assange » in prison… suffering and on the verge of death « ; Ulysse Gosset retorts at 1mn46s in this interview (my emphasis): » But he’s not in prison“. Bis repetita at 2mn44s : « He’s in a guarded house, he’s not in a prison, he’s not in the Gulag, hein… ».
[ “Guarded house“ translates the French idiom “Résidence surveillée“].
If your arms fall off, that’s normal… Gosset is no youngster, his greying beard bears the marks of his work at TF1, biggest French national private TV, then for Radio France in Tokyo, Moscow (1986-1993), Washington, then co-creator of France 24 international TV, winner of the Grand Prix de la Presse Internationale, to finish as the international political columnist for BFM, the well-known French “Business“ TV which broadcasted this astounding scene.
One of three things: either he makes willingly an error to ease the embarrassment, or he is totally ignorant about a hot and ancient topic that concerns his specialty, or he knows things and divulges them in a subtle blow… Either way, it is damned serious…
Recent session in the London’s Frontline Club, formerly visited by Assange, announced the « Julian Assange’s last chance to prevent extradition to the USA ». WJJA’s hearing reports will soon be published here.
We don’t know whether the search for such a swampy truth is favourable to his fate. We are certain, however, that it honors the ethics of the whistle-blower.
Du droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-mêmes 
Laisser un commentaire