Julian Assange’s Deal With The Devil

After five years of incarceration in Belmarsh high-security prison, having already spent seven years in political asylum—what was tantamount to house arrest in the Ecuadorian embassy—Julian Assange was finally permitted by the British government to return to his homeland of Australia. The deal Assange made with the U.S. government to end its extradition quest and thereby secure his release can be viewed in one of two ways. On its face, the deal required that Assange “confess” to a felony which he did not commit, accepting a sentence of prison time already served.

“Working as a journalist I encouraged my source to provide information that was said to be classified in order to publish that information. I believe that the First Amendment protected that activity but I accept that as written it’s a violation of the Espionage Act statute.”

Assange’s attorney Barry Pollack further clarified that Assange believed “that the conduct of issue should be protected by the First Amendment but understands that no court has held that there is a First Amendment defence to the Espionage Act, he understands that his conduct violates the terms of the Espionage Act, and is pleading guilty on that basis.”

The judge accepted Assange’s admission of guilt for one felony charge (under section 793 of the Espionage Act), “conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information.” He was then sentenced to time served, and pronounced a free man.

Supporters of Assange and Wikileaks all over the world rejoiced at the surprising development, having mostly resigned themselves to the depressing likelihood that Assange would be made into a martyr for future generations to pay tribute to on holidays established in his name, with tourists snapping photos of effigy statues in city squares, and future politicians issuing lengthy speeches in which they would lament the obvious miscarriage of justice. Instead, Assange walked out of Belmarsh prison onto an airplane which transported him to the court where his protracted dispute with the U.S. government was concluded, after which he flew to Canberra, Australia, to reunite with his family and resume his life.

...Now we must all rally for a complete pardon of Assange on the grounds that, in fact, he never committed any crime at all. It seems unlikely that the U.S. government would go so far as to admit that its bogus case had no merits whatsoever, but by continuing to discuss what was done to Julian Assange, we can at the very least help to disabuse people of the false narratives used for years to discredit and vilify him as a Russian asset and a rapist. Let us celebrate the liberation of Assange by refusing to permit the U.S. government’s version of the story of how his case was concluded to be etched into the annals of history. Poetic justice will be achieved when Wikileaks (or a like-minded organization) publishes the internal memos which led to this felicitous turn of events.

Ultimately, the outdated and overly vague Espionage Act must be rescinded by congress, on the grounds that it makes whistleblowing all but impossible, requiring as it now does a willingness to endure a superhuman amount of self-sacrifice. The text of the Act has changed over the more than century since its ratification, but the core remains the same, and clearly assumes that the U.S. government can do no wrong, when the whole point of whistleblowing is to expose government malfeasance. In most prosecutions under the Espionage Act, the government has focused on the danger faced by persons exposed through disclosure of state secrets. But if the government were not committing what are easily interpretable as crimes, then there would be no such danger at all. And were government officials not permitted to act without effective oversight and with complete impunity, then they would be much less likely to commit crimes in the first place.

🔗SOURCE ➡️ Libertarian Institute


7/8 Julian Assange Is Finally Free – But Should Not Have Been Prosecuted in the First Place

Follow ➡️ @PsyopDaily