The Assange Hearing: A Reticent Request 133

Julian Assange will stand next week in the armoured dock, accused of the “crime” of publishing. It is worth recalling that Wikileaks has a 100% record of accuracy. Nothing it has published has ever been shown to be inauthentic. Julian stands accused of the crime of telling the truth – more than that, of telling freely to the ordinary people of the world about the crimes which the powerful seek to conceal.

It is a sad and damning fact that nobody in the United States has ever been jailed for the war crimes Wikileaks has revealed, for the massacre of journalists and of children, for the torture or for the corruption. Instead, the publisher who helped whistleblowers to get the truth out to the people has suffered enormously, and is threatened with incarceration for the rest of his life.

We might also consider that none of Julian’s publishing ever took place inside the United States. The USA is trying to extradite him for publishing American secrets outside the USA, in a startling claim of worldwide jurisdiction. It is a prosecution that would if successful have a massive chilling effect on investigative journalists all over the globe. The fact that the mainstream media editors who gleefully republished Wikileaks’ revelations are not also in the dock reflects the fact that the security services are now very confident they have those outlets under control.

For these and many other reasons, Julian’s hearing next week is extremely important and I am going down to London today for ten days to cover it and to take part in associated events. I do hope everybody will make a real effort to join the protests.

With great reluctance, I am obliged to ask for donations to help this blog cover the Assange court case. We have rented a house close to the court and I will be trying to queue in the early hours of the morning to get one of the tiny number of seats available to the public at the hearing. The last year has seen constant travels down to London to support Julian in one way and another, and funds for the blog are running very low at the moment – very substantially less than 1% of readers subscribe (I am grateful to and humbled by those who do subscribe). I generally do not seek one off donations, as long term income is required to keep things on the road, but for the Assange – and Salmond – cases to be covered properly an exception is needed. With humility and reticence, I therefore ask if a few people could put some small donations forward using the standard payment details below.


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.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

133 thoughts on “The Assange Hearing: A Reticent Request

1 2
  • Chichi Latté

    Glad to help even though quite skint. If you could give us your paypal email address it would make one-off payments much easier – online bank transfers can be a right palaver for new recipients.

    • Funn3r

      I dislike PayPal and prefer not to use them; I’m sure I’m not alone. Equally, I agree that “palaver” accurately describes the process of setting up a new recipient from a traditional bank account. For me the solution is to use the smartphone app from one of the so-called challenger banks. I prefer Revolut which can set up a new recipient with just a few keystrokes but other similar online banks are available.

      • Borncynical

        As an ‘older’ person, I do not consider myself particularly computer literate and don’t have anything other than a desktop PC. Nevertheless I do count my blessings for the benefits of online banking. As Craig has kindly published his account details, I can assure anyone in a similar position to me that – if you already use the online banking system – the process for a one-off payment doesn’t have to be daunting.

        I bank with Lloyds and all I needed to do was go to my online account page; payments; new payee; fill in account holder’s name, account number and sort code; enter amount to be paid and select details of when to be paid; receive an automated 4 digit security number on the screen; and, when my registered contact phone rang immediately, follow the instructions to key in the online 4 digit number on the phone pad and, hey presto, all set up. The requested one-off payment is then processed.

        The advantage is that once the payee has been authorised and linked to the payer’s account that procedure never has to be followed again. Further ad hoc payments can be made at any time. I make online payments regularly to all sorts of recipients so the chances are that I will periodically think to myself that whilst I am doing so I will also make a further payment to Craig. That involves nothing more than selecting his name from the list of payees authorised to be paid from my account, entering the amount to be paid, selecting when the payment is to be made and clicking on the proceed button. And that’s it. I doubt that only Lloyds Bank operates such a simple system.

        My only proviso would be to check on his blog before making future payments that Craig is still happy to receive such payments to his account and that his account details remain unchanged.

    • Susan

      Well, I didn’t find it a palaver at all to set up Craig as a new payee in my UK bank account (all done from my home in Canada using Online Banking). This time I was stymied when my Security Key wouldn’t work. But a quick call to Telephone Banking and it was completed in less than two minutes.

      Craig, thank you so much for going down to London to support Julian next week. I hope he will not look so haunted as he did at his last court appearance. It was your account of Julian’s last appearance that galvanized the medical community to write the letter published in the Lancet. Thank you for all you have done to keep Julian’s plight in the public eye. Bless you for your kindness.

  • david cox

    Good morning Craig, I already subscribe with a regular monthly donation. On this occasion I would like to make an additional one-off donation and would ask if there is any reason why you do not have the one-off option in your posts; I prefer to pay by paypal.

  • Forthestate

    I’ve made a one off payment to you which is equivalent to a good yearly subscription, because it suits me that way. I understand your reasons for preferring a payment method which spreads donations so you can plan, but you’ll be losing considerable funding by insisting on it, I promise you. Providing a quick and easy way to give you one-off donations will increase your income; bank transfers are not a good idea in the long term. Thanks for all your hard work.

    I’m sure everyone knows, but just a reminder that there’s a documentary on Assange on RT which begins today, and runs until Sunday.

  • Paul

    For what it’s worth, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) are running a petition for Mr Assange’s freedom here:

    And wrote yesterday on the issue here:
    As they say:
    “We know that people react in different ways to Julian Assange’s persona and that some of the positions he has taken have surprised even his friends.
    That’s not the issue.
    Deciding if Julian Assange is a hero or a saint is not the question. Whether we like or don’t like Julian Assange is not the question.
    The question is: do we think it’s acceptable for a contribution to journalism to be treated as spying? That’s the question.”

    To me, that sums it up – I really don’t think I would like Mr Assange if I met him, and some of what he has said I find difficult. But I absolutely support the position that he should not be punished for highlighting the sins of our masters.

    • Robyn

      Happy to make a small donation to help Craig support Julian.

      Good to see Reporters Without Borders being true to their name in this case. It’s only a few years since they lobbied the Swiss Press Club to cancel a panel discussion on the White Helmets. Fortunately, the Swiss Press Club did not succumb to RSF pressure and the discussion went ahead.

      I cancelled my Paypal account when in 2010 they, among other financial institutions, refused to process donations to Wikileaks.

  • Christine Smith

    Hope all goes well for you next week. Will donate although not by paypal. I hope to come down and support JA in some way next week.

  • jmg

    Craig Murray wrote:

    > For these and many other reasons, Julian’s hearing next week is extremely important and I am going down to London today for ten days to cover it and to take part in associated events. I do hope everybody will make a real effort to join the protests.

    Thank you Craig, it is indeed a crucial, even historic time.

    TIMELINE: Freedom of the press and the extradition of Julian Assange


    “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
    — George Washington, 1783

    “First Amendment
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
    — U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment, December 15, 1791

    “Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    “Article 19.
    “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
    — United Nations General Assembly, December 10, 1948

    “Classified National Security Information
    “Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
    “(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
    “(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
    “(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; . . .”
    — U.S. Executive Order 13526, December 29, 2009

    “Journalism should be more like science. As far as possible, facts should be verifiable.”
    — Julian Assange, award-winning investigative journalist and publisher, July 14, 2010

    “As for supporting me if I am extradited, I would say that it would be way too late. If people want to support us, they need to do it before I am extradited . . . Even if they’re technically innocent under the law, which probably anyone within WikiLeaks is — as I know that our activities are protected under the First Amendment — the verdict is still not guaranteed, due to of the degree of national security sector influence in the judicial process.”
    — Julian Assange, June 15, 2011

    “If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.”
    — Julian Assange, speech at Trafalgar Square, October 8, 2011

    “There should be transparency of governments and there should be privacy for individuals.”
    — Julian Assange, May 29, 2015

    “It’s Julian Assange and WikiLeaks that have returned honour to journalism. Julian is a truth teller and that’s what has upset those who continue what Goebbels called ‘The Big Lie’.”
    — John Pilger, award-winning journalist and filmmaker, April 11, 2017

    “WikiLeaks is a media organization which publishes and comments upon censored or restricted official materials involving war, surveillance or corruption, which are leaked to it in a variety of different circumstances. . . . So far as the evidence before us goes, Mr. Assange is the only media publisher and free speech advocate in the Western world who is in a situation that a UN body has characterized as arbitrary detention. It is a matter of public controversy how this situation should be understood. The circumstances of his case arguably raise issues about human rights and Press freedom, which are the subject of legitimate public debate. Such debate may even help to resolve them, which would itself be a public benefit.”
    — Judge Andrew Bartlett QC, December 12, 2017

    • jmg


      “The extradition of Julian Assange to the US for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan should be opposed by the British government.”
      — Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the UK Labour Party, April 11, 2019

      “The Assange arrest is scandalous. . . . The efforts to silence a journalist who was producing materials that people in power didn’t want the rascal multitude to know about . . . That’s basically what happened. WikiLeaks was producing things that people ought to know about those in power. People in power don’t like that, so therefore we have to silence it.”
      — Noam Chomsky, linguist, philosopher, historian, social critic, April 11, 2019

      “Mr. Assange’s arrest and possible extradition to face charges related to an alleged conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to publish documents that exposed corruption and criminality by numerous private businesses, tyrants, and countries worldwide is ultimately an attack on press freedom. The arrest sets a dangerous precedent that could extend to other media organizations such as The New York Times . . .”
      — Center for Constitutional Rights, April 11, 2019

      “The indictment and the Justice Department’s press release treat everyday journalistic practices as part of a criminal conspiracy. . . . activities that are not just lawful but essential to press freedom—activities like cultivating sources, protecting sources’ identities, and communicating with sources securely.”
      — Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, April 11, 2019

      “The arrest Thursday of Julian Assange eviscerates all pretense of the rule of law and the rights of a free press. . . . The arrest of Assange, I fear, marks the official beginning of the corporate totalitarianism that will define our lives.”
      — Chris Hedges, award-winning journalist, April 12, 2019

      “The chat logs of the famous exchange between Chelsea Manning, who was the source of the 2010 disclosure, and someone who is alleged to be Julian Assange” [username ‘pressassociation’ and alias ‘Nathaniel Frank’] “but is actually using a secure and anonymous messenger, called Jabber, using protocol called Off The Record, which is actually supposed to provide capabilities like plausible deniability.”
      — Edward Snowden, whistleblower, April 22, 2019

      “You are being lied to about Julian Assange. He has exposed more war crimes, crimes against humanity, corruption, and lies than perhaps anyone in history. That is why our government is so eager to lock him away forever.”
      — Lee Camp, broadcaster, April 23, 2019

      “Truth, ultimately, is all we have.”
      — Julian Assange, May 13, 2019

    • jmg


      “Julian Assange’s indictment aims at the heart of the First Amendment.”
      — The New York Times Editorial Board, May 23, 2019

      “These unprecedented charges against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the most significant and terrifying threat to the First Amendment in the 21st century.”
      — Freedom of the Press Foundation, May 23, 2019

      “For the first time in the history of our country, the government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information. . . . It establishes a dangerous precedent that can be used to target all news organizations that hold the government accountable by publishing its secrets.”
      — American Civil Liberties Union, May 23, 2019

      “The Department of Justice just declared war — not on Wikileaks, but on journalism itself. This is no longer about Julian Assange: This case will decide the future of media.”
      — Edward Snowden, May 23, 2019

      “A stunning and unprecedented assault on press freedom.”
      — Human Rights Watch, May 24, 2019

      “The indictment marks the first time the U.S. government has prosecuted a publisher under the Espionage Act. . . . It is a reckless assault on the First Amendment that crosses a line no previous administration has been willing to cross, and threatens to criminalize the most basic practices of reporting.”
      — Committee to Protect Journalists, May 24, 2019

      “The new Assange indictment endangers journalism.”
      — Bloomberg News, May 24, 2019

      “Let me be clear: it is a disturbing attack on the First Amendment for the Trump administration to decide who is or is not a reporter for the purposes of a criminal prosecution. Donald Trump must obey the Constitution, which protects the publication of news about our government.”
      — Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate, May 24, 2019

    • jmg


      “The First Amendment covers everyone. . . . The First Amendment also covers non-citizens such as Assange.”
      — Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, May 30, 2019

      “Now, the Trump DOJ has indicted . . . in direct defiance of a Supreme Court decision that ruled against this during the Nixon years. . . . In a landmark decision, known as the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court ruled that a publisher may reveal whatever materials come into the publisher’s possession, no matter how they got there, so long as the materials are themselves material to the public interest.”
      — Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, May 30, 2019

      “The British government must not accede to the US extradition request for Julian Assange as he faces a real risk of serious human rights violations if sent there. . . . The UK must abide by its obligations under international human rights law that forbid the transfer of individuals to another country where they would face serious human rights violations.”
      — Massimo Moratti, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Europe, June 13, 2019

      “Once again, we urge the judicial authorities in the UK not to extradite Assange to the US, as the charges are far-reaching and set a dangerous precedent that could affect the legitimate work of journalists and publishers everywhere.”
      — PEN International, June 13, 2019

      “The publication of classified documents is not a crime in the United States, but if Assange is extradited and convicted it will become one. . . . The extradition and trial of Assange will mean the end of public investigations by the press into the crimes of the ruling elites. It will cement into place a frightening corporate tyranny. . . . This is the gravest assault on press freedom in my lifetime.”
      — Chris Hedges, June 17, 2019

      “In the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. . . . And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.”
      — Nils Melzer, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, June 26, 2019

      “A line has been drawn in the sand and either you are going to support Julian and fight this retribution and those indictments, or you basically step back and the lights will go out. That’s how serious it is.”
      — Kristinn Hrafnsson, journalist, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, July 2019

      “. . . the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern. . . . This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers. . . . the documents were of public importance. Therefore, the First Amendment protects the publication . . .”
      — Judge John G. Koeltl, July 30, 2019

      “It’s not just me. It’s much wider. It’s all of us. It’s all journalists, and all publishers who do their job who are in danger.”
      — Julian Assange, August 2019

    • jmg


      “It’s important that parliamentarians learn the facts of this matter. There’s so much naiveté and ignorance and disinformation swirling around that it’s no wonder that a lot of people are wary or even dislike Julian, but I reckon that when people find out the facts of the matter they will get behind him.”
      — Australian Federal MP Andrew Wilkie, October 2019

      “The only person who’s abided by the law the entire time this epic tragedy has now lasted has been Julian Assange . . . What Assange practiced when he published ‘US war files’ is called journalism. Which thank god is perfectly legal. Much of what those files reveal is not. What he did when he allegedly ‘skipped bail’ in the UK is called requesting asylum. Also perfectly legal, a basic human right. He never broke a law.”
      — Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor, October 23, 2019

      “2011 . . . I knew that the FBI were on the way . . . they came here to frame Julian Assange and WikiLeaks . . .
      “As things turned out the best they could hope for was our silence. They can live with anything as long as they can keep us silent, uncritical, complaisant, but once we speak, they are just naked, like the emperor in the fable.
      “Kristinn Hrafnsson is highly respected in Iceland. . . .
      “WikiLeaks was bringing out the truth, revealing crimes which should have been taken to court. This has been prevented. So the charges brought against the publisher are, in reality, charges against free speech and freedom of the press. The American police and secret services are trying to create an atmosphere of impunity, where they can do anything. Even when they landed here, they were showing contempt for democracy.
      “What they are doing to Assange is in opposition to the American Constitution and the principles of human rights, they claim they are protecting. . . .
      “All this for carrying out investigative journalism. . . .
      “All depends on us. There is not such a thing as spectators. Everybody is taking a part — sitting quiet is taking part!”
      — Ögmundur Jónasson, former Icelandic Interior Minister, November 2019

      “This is not about me. This is about you!”
      — Julian Assange, November 5, 2019

      “If Europe loses Julian Assange, Europe will lose its soul.”
      — Srećko Horvat, philosopher, co-founder of DiEM25, November 6, 2019

      “Journalism is not a crime, Julian Assange must be released.”
      — International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), November 14, 2019

      “Sweden drops 9-year-old ‘preliminary investigation’ into Julian Assange for a third, and final time.”
      — Hanna Jonasson, Assange’s legal team, November 19, 2019

      “Julian Assange denounced in his publications war crimes condemned by the Geneva Convention. Today, he is the one they would like to imprison, that they would like to silence. The United States must drop its extradition request and end the espionage lawsuit against Julian Assange. We consider this case to be one of the most serious attacks on press freedom, on public freedoms committed within the European Union.”
      — French journalists’ unions (SNJ, SNJ-CGT, CFDT Journalistes), November 27, 2019

      “The case of Julian Assange is, in all senses, the turning point. It is the biggest and the most serious attack on journalism and the free press in decades, if not a hundred years. If this extradition goes ahead, journalists around the world will have lost so much that it will be very hard, if not impossible, to get back the rights that we had before.”
      — Kristinn Hrafnsson, December 9, 2019

      “We believe that the arbitrary detention and criminal prosecution of Julian Assange set an extremely dangerous precedent for journalists, media actors and freedom of the press.”
      — European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), January 2, 2020

    • jmg


      “English lawyers have almost no time with him and international lawyers have no time with him, basically. So it’s a strategy from the UK to undermine his defense and have him out of the country as soon as possible, in order to forget about this issue which has cost them a lot of media [attention] and pressure and discomfort. We are victims of this strategy. . . .
      “He is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. . . . He reveals the nature of our regimes . . .
      “The conditions of his detention are sufficient to destroy a man. . . . And yet he is not destroyed. And yet he is still an active man and yet he will be able to defend himself, starting the 24th of February. So, that says a lot about who he is. . . .
      “I was very surprised by how tall he was and strong — he is much more impressive when you see him in real life — and how smooth and humble he was, which was very contradictory with what I had read about him, something that surprised me a lot. . . .
      “We are determined. We are neither pessimistic nor optimistic. We are fighting for a cause and whatever our chances, we will not let it go.”
      — Juan Branco, WikiLeaks legal team, January 23, 2020

      “The most essential journalism of every era is precisely that which a government attempts to silence. These prosecutions demonstrate that they are ready to stop the presses — if they can.”
      — Edward Snowden, article in The Washington Post, January 26, 2020

      “Threats to media freedom and journalists’ security in Europe
      “Member States . . . must . . . recognise, and ensure respect of, the right of journalists to protect their sources, and develop an appropriate normative, judicial and institutional framework to protect whistleblowers and whistleblowing facilitators, in line with Assembly Resolution 2300 (2019) ‘Improving the protection of whistleblowers all over Europe’; in this respect, consider that the detention and criminal prosecution of Mr Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, and join the recommendation of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment who declared, on 1 November 2019, that Mr Assange’s extradition to the United States must be barred and that he must be promptly released”
      — Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 2317, January 28, 2020

      “Dear Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee,
      “We wish to nominate Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden for the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, in honour of their unparalleled contributions to the pursuit of peace, and their immense personal sacrifices to promote peace for all.”
      — 17 Members of the German Bundestag, January 31, 2020

      “Imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange has been awarded Consortium News’ 2020 Gary Webb Freedom of the Press Award for courage in the face of an unprecedented attack on press freedom.”
      — Joe Lauria, editor-in-chief of Consortium News, February 10, 2020

      “Will the Prime Minister agree with the Parliamentary report that’s going to the Council of Europe that this extradition should be opposed and the rights of journalists and whistleblowers upheld for the good of all of us?”
      — Jeremy Corbyn, February 12, 2020

      “There was no espionage. There was no hacking. It was just a person doing the right thing and publishing important information in the public interest and frankly it is an international scandal that he is locked up in there in those conditions as a political prisoner.”
      — Australian Federal MP Andrew Wilkie, February 18, 2020

      “In view of both the press freedom implications and the serious concerns over the treatment Julian Assange would be subjected to in the United States, my assessment as Commissioner for Human Rights is that he should not be extradited.”
      — Dunja Mijatović, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, February 20, 2020

      “We, journalists and journalistic organizations around the globe, express our grave concern for Mr Assange’s wellbeing, for his continued detention and for the draconian espionage charges.
      “This case stands at the heart of the principle of free speech. . . . Also, the use of espionage charges against people publishing materials provided by whistleblowers is a first and should alarm every journalist and publisher.
      “In a democracy, journalists can reveal war crimes and cases of torture and abuse without having to go to jail. It is the very role of the press in a democracy. If governments can use espionage laws against journalists and publishers, they are deprived of their most important and traditional defense — of acting in the public interest — which does not apply under the Espionage Act. . . .
      “Julian Assange has made an outstanding contribution to public interest journalism, transparency and government accountability around the world. He is being singled out and prosecuted for publishing information that should never have been withheld from the public. . . .
      “As journalists and journalists’ organizations that believe in human rights, freedom of information and of the public’s right to know, we demand the immediate release of Julian Assange.”
      — Journalists Speak Up for Julian Assange, 1243 signatures from 99 countries so far

  • Blair Paterson

    Craig I refuse to answer anyone on hear who does not use their real full name but hide behind non de plumes what are they afraid of ??? They have plenty to say but do not back it up by revealing THIER identitt

    • Magic Robot

      Blair, perhaps you have nothing to lose, but in the current climate people often find a nom-de-plume necessary. Employers, for example can become vindictive towards their employee if they take an exception to a comment made. And, should it not be the arguments that you debate, not the person? Attacking the attorney rather than the defendant is poor practice.

      Furthermore in GB, Charter 88 proposed a written constitution for GB & NI, it failed of course, you may read it here:

      They failed to prevent a new law being passed in 1989. A fundamental change was made in British law, as follows: The new Official Secrets Act 1989 contains no mention of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, thereby removing ‘the public interest’ defence created by that section. In practice, even if an official were brave enough to speak out, (blow the whistle) anyone PUBLISHING this knowledge would also face a term in prison.

      The rot set in over 30 years ago, so Mr. Corbyn’s comments in support seem rather late in the day.

    • Dungroanin

      Craig knows the identities of all here as do all websites and apps you use because they require valid email addresses and their IP addresses and devices are part of every exchange. That is why it is difficult to have multiple identities here.

      Any published name is just that. It can be a spoof to, and age and photo and address. They are meaningless – except maybe on on verified accounts on FB/Twitter etc.
      But of course they and GCHQ know ALL details and can watch you all the time.

      Nowdays what you say stays published forever and will effect peoples careers and other aspects such as visa applications to America and they also have familes that may not share the same views but would be pilloried.

      So what exactly is your problem – you believe all whistleblowers should be publicly identified?

      • Magic Robot

        I believe the authorities were well aware of what would happen when the internet first became available for the use of the public. They weren’t going to allow it without having a ‘fail safe’ in place.

        The first commercial dialup ISP in the world started operating in 1989, that very same year in GB the new Official Secrets Act was introduced, and ‘the public interest’ defence removed from it. I do not believe in coincidences. At the time, people were not aware an ‘internet’ existed at all, for the most part, so there was little opposition from the public to this fundamental change in the law.

        A generation later, and the dreadful implications are clear: not ‘publish and be damned’ but publish and go to prison – forever. Mr. Assange is their example to us all, lest we ‘misbehave’.

        • Laguerre

          The authorities really weren’t in control when the internet proliferated. You’ve simply forgotten, or never knew, what it was like before. Me, I had a French Minitel – the authorities’ pre-internet – you had to pay every minute to use it. It was the scientific nutters of Cern, like Tim Berners-Lee, who created what we use today, and the authorities have been trying to get back control ever since.

          • David

            Oui, correct Laguerre, and TimBL used my Minitel term to dial up the 0041 vxcrna DEC VAX servers from time to time from Ferney-Voltaire. in those days even Microsoft didn’t think the internet would be a big thing. I was subsequently at some of the committee meetings in Sophia Antipolis where the governments implemented their full take-back, data-grab.

            Prof Sir TimBL, for the record isn’t, wasn’t ever “a nutter” 🙂 , but I get what you mean

          • Magic Robot

            “You’ve simply forgotten, or never knew, what it was like before. Me, I had a French Minitel.”

            I was reared on an IBM Osborne using Wordstar and a modem you dropped the ‘phone handset on to make a connection.

            So, your explanation seems to be that a random GB bureaucrat got up one morning, and decides, quite out of the blue, to approach his minister and suggest a change to the Official Secrets Act that had been just fine for the last 78 years. Just bored that day, he must have needed something to do?

            Perhaps you have forgotten that the French government had already had a nasty experience with your minitel, a system which was on a tiny scale. PC’s however, were all over the US, GB and everywhere else in the West, not just France.

            “the authorities have been trying to get back control ever since.” You’ve simply forgotten, or never knew, that the ‘net was not invented for the public, unlike minitel it’s purpose originally was was for military use and it’s development was run by the Pentagon (DARPA).

            Sadly, they are more than in control over anyone who wishes to publish, then defend themselves in court later as we are soon to see. JA has no defence at all he can use under the new law.

            You have yet to show the change in the law was merely a ‘coincidence.’

    • David

      Blair, I for one do publish here using my real name. Not my full name, obv – but the server logs, data in transit info, show all about me. As does my bulk personal dataset, and all the “retained data” communications logs. There is currently zero pseudonimity on today’s internet. There was reasonable proportional privacy until just a few years ago.

      I just made my £ donation, to help journalism, good luck Craig & team.

  • Alastair McP

    Why do you permit your blog being guffed up by the likes of jmg? Does he (or do you) think anyone actually reads such shit? Seriously weird moderation policy which certainly doesn’t do favours.

    When finding a thread of such gravity as this can the barmy army kindly hold back on posting until the next piece on raspberry pickers or Skripal appears?

    I am totally behind your support of JA and look forward to seeing you again next week

    (The guy with the Dimple)

    • jmg

      Alastair, sorry for the inconvenience, in fact I was hesitant to post so much now, six posts, it has been just today.

      I went ahead feeling the urgency of the imminent extradition hearing, and posting just a careful selection of some of the most useful excerpts for all those defending Julian and freedom of the press in so many ways and so many places.

      There is a lot of disinformation, so a very important task is to help each other to inform people on the facts and what is at stake.

      • Alastair McP

        No jmg, I apologise. You are evidently highly exercised about all this and I am with you in that.

        What you posted wasn’t “shit”. My anger/frustration is that such egregious prolixity as your posts is a real turn-off for anyone other than the “already converted”. Assange is, in my opinion, one of the most genuinely important and far-reaching “watershed moments” of my lifetime, at least that one can aspire to make a difference to.

        I didn’t read what you wrote as I’m very familiar with it; I am one of the “already converted”. I also apologise to Magic Robot. You’re not as far as I can tell a member of the “Barmy Army”. I’m sure you know what and whom I refer to. If you did not know those details, and read the entirety of jmg’s posts, I am both surprised and impressed. I’m also sure that you’re in a tiny minority.

        I’m not expressing myself well; I am angry. I meant something like “brevity is the soul of wit” or some such proverbial BS… and this could do with an injection of that. People must be energised, somehow, and mini dissertations on blogspots seems to me counter-productive in that regard.

        Angry actually doesn’t touch the sides. I’m fucking livid. Sincere apologies.

        See you next week Craig. You’ll know who I am from my choice of ?.

        • Magic Robot

          No offence taken on my part – the comment I made was somewhat ‘tongue in cheek.’

          It is a pity there are not more good souls such as yourself ready to take direct action on JA’s cause. Unfortunately, I cannot afford to go but offer my best wishes to all who do.

    • Los

      “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”

      Areopagitica: A speech of Mr John Milton for the liberty of unlicenced printing to the Parliament of England 1644.

  • J

    I hope you manage to cover the costs and thanks for doing this Craig, your perspective is as invaluable as ever. I’ll try to send something next week, I’m broke at the moment.

    • James Dickins

      “Thank you for your important work, Craig.
      You’re better than at least two governments.”

      Those being the governments of the United States and Britain, I imagine, I’ve just sent you some money for Julian Assange, Craig.

  • Emily

    Craig, I already subscribe, but was looking for another one time donation. I’ll go through the extra steps, but a button on the front would help.

    BTW, thank you for all that you do for us. Your interview with Aaron Maté and Randy Credico was enlightening, especially the Trump pardon business.

  • Tatyana

    I only hope the judge would be honest and respected person.

    I once bookmarked the story that happened in my country, to share with you all here. Perhaps people who are going to post paper letters to support Assange would like to catch the idea from this story 🙂

    A person from my region sent a lawsuit to the court in an envelope with printed illustration of Gerard David’s “The Judgement of Cambyses” also known as the “Skinning a corrupt judge”

    the photo of the envelope is here (in russian)
    the story is also covered here

    Enjoy and have a great weekend!

  • Brianfujisan

    Sent off £20..Bit of a Palaver as Some say…But nothing compared to what Julian is going through… Makes me sick..
    Everywhere I go in my Town I can see vast open spaces..Gleaming Snowy mountains and restless river Clyde.. To be tortured like Julian would kill me

    Keep up the Vital Fight Craig n Co

    All the Souls Who Can
    Such a Very Vital Fight
    More than just One Man

  • Deb O'Nair

    Let’s not forget that Chelsea Manning is languishing in indefinite solitary confinement for refusing to give ‘evidence’ and has accrued to date a quarter of a million bucks in fines. The plain truth is that the US/UK have become openly lawless despots, operating under a Frankenstein’s monster of Nazi and Soviet ideology.

  • Nick

    I already subscribe.
    Is there a way to do a one off payment via PayPal?
    Most people won’t want to setup a new bank payment for a one off and it may put them off.

  • Republicofscotland

    John Shipton, telling RT that in the latter part under Morales government, the Ecuadorian embassy often didn’t provide food for Julian Assange nor the basic necessities such as toilet paper.

    One can only imagine how bad it really got in the Ecuadorian embassy in the latter stages. Some human rights activities claim that Belmarsh prison is actually worse than Guantanamo bay.

    The US hopes to prove Assange is a spy and not a journalist by attempting to show he colluded with Chelsea Manning.

    • jmg

      > The US hopes to prove Assange is a spy and not a journalist by attempting to show he colluded with Chelsea Manning.

      The interesting fact is that there is no evidence that Assange was the person communicating with Manning. Just someone with username ‘pressassociation’ and alias ‘Nathaniel Frank’. Julian has plausible deniability.

      See Snowden’s quote (April 22, 2019) in a post above (‘2. The arrest of Julian Assange’).

  • Sandy

    It’s expensive to donate regularly from overseas as the banks take their stake for every single payment. (we both lose out)
    Direct transfer looks pretty daunting.
    So there needs to be a button on PayPal/Visa for one off donations.
    I would love to send you some money to support your great work.

    Kind Regards

  • jmg

    Amnesty International launches a new campaign today: Julian Assange.

    [Video] Espionage charges are a chilling blow to journalists & publishers who work to expose serious human rights abuses — Amnesty International — Twitter — Feb 21, 2020

    US/UK: Drop charges and halt extradition of Julian Assange | Amnesty International | 21 February 2020

    Take Action: USA must drop charges against Julian Assange | Amnesty International

    • Mighty Drunken

      Interesting. As Amnesty International has been almost silent about Julian until now. It feels like something has changed in the last few weeks and many more groups are now supporting Julian. Maybe the “powers that be” feel they have made their message clear?

  • Ben

    It’s certainly possible that Stone was blowing smoke, raising something he knew Credico cared deeply about, pardoning Assange, to get him to toe the line. It’s likely, too, he was just taking reporting on efforts made in late 2017 to liberate Assange and claiming credit for it.

    But at the very least, it shows that Stone used a pardon for Assange — something Credico still spends a lot of time pushing — as leverage to try to get Credico to sustain his cover story. It doesn’t explain why that point of leverage was so effective, though.

  • Mike.B

    Craig, I wanted to donate to your Assange appeal. I wil use only paypal. The only way Paypal will accept money is for recurring subscriptions. Please open a direct Paypal account so I can help you out.

1 2