Thursday, February 27, Woolwich Crown Court. The first round of extradition hearings regarding Julian Assanges case concluded a day early, to recommence on May 18th. It ended on an insensible note very much in keeping with the woolly-headed reasoning of Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is of the view that a WikiLeaks publisher in a cage does not put all heaven in a rage. On Wednesday, Assanges defence had requested whether he would be able to leave the confines of his glass cage and join his legal team. As Assange had explained in response to his nodding off during proceedings, I cannot meaningfully communicate with my lawyers. There was little point in asking if he could follow proceedings without enabling his participation.

This was not a point that fell on reasonable ears. The judge felt it came too close to a bail application, and was initially refused as posing a potential risk to the public. Gibberish was duly thrown at counsel for both sides, with health and safety, risk assessment and up to Group 4 featuring as meaningless terms on the obvious: that Assange could pose no threat whatsoever, as he would be in the continuous company of security guards. As former UK diplomat Craig Murray observed, She started to resemble something worse than a Dalek, a particularly stupid local government officer of a very low grade.

According to the judge, to permit such a measure of access between Assange and his team effectively constituted a departure from court custody, a striking nonsense of Dickensian dimensions. Not even the prosecution felt it unreasonable, suggesting that one need not be so technical in granting such applications.

Thursdays proceedings reaffirmed Judge Baraitsers stubborn position. Her first gesture was to permit Assange a pair of headphones to better enable him to hear the proceedings, followed by a brief adjournment to see if his hearing had, in fact, improved. Assange was unimpressed, removing them after 30 minutes.

Her stretched reasoning found Assange sufficiently accessible to his lawyers despite his glassed surrounds; he could still communicate with them via notes passed through the barrier. It is quite apparent over the past four days that you have had no difficulty communicating with your legal team. The judge was willing to permit Assange a later start in proceedings to enable a meeting with the legal team and adjourn should the defence wish to meet their client in a holding cell.

That so complex a case as extradition can be reduced to sporadic notes passed to legal counsel and staggered adjournments suggests the continued hobbling of the defence by the authorities. Its invidiousness lies in how seemingly oblivious the judicial mind is to the scope of the case, complexity reduced to a matter of meetings, small points of procedure and law.

The defence team submitted that the process of consultation suggested by the judge unduly prolonged proceedings, rendering them cumbersome and insensible. The court might have to adjourn ever three minutes for a 20-minute break. To constantly take Assange to and from his holding cell was would unnecessarily lengthen proceedings and complicate matters. Judge Baraitser was dismissive of such argument, claiming that the defence was merely exaggerating.

The legal issues discussed on the fourth day centred on quibbling over the issue of espionage and its nexus with political activity. Espionage, suggested James Lewis QC for the US-driven prosecution, need not be political. Nor did it seem that Assange was intent on bringing down the US government. It cant possibly be said that there is a political struggle in existence between the American government and opposing factions.

Lewis, as has been his approach from the start, preferred a more restrictive interpretation about what a political offence might be, notably in connection with extradition. Extradition is based on conduct, it is not anymore based on the names of offences. In a rather crude, end-of-history line of thought, Lewis argued that political offences were dated matters, hardly applicable to modern societies which no longer see dissidents upholding the values of liberal democracy. (It seems that the tree of liberty, according to the US prosecution, no longer needs urgent refreshment.)

Besides, argued Lewis, the court did not need to resolve these issues, but they demonstrate that any bare assertion that Wikileaks was engaged in a struggle with the US government was in opposition to it or was seeking to bring about a policy change would need to be examined far more closely.

That is exactly what the defence contended. Assanges core activities in publishing had been based on altering US policy, with Iraq and Afghanistan being key theatres. Why was he seeking to publish the rules of engagement?, posed the defence. They were published to show that war crimes were being committed, to show they breached their own rules of engagement. Ditto the publication of the Guantanamo files, an act done to reveal the extent of torture being undertaken during the course of the war on terror. All these, contended Edward Fitzgerald QC for the defence, did change government policy. WikiLeaks didnt just seek to induce change, it did induce change.

The documentary record on Assanges political activity in this regard is thick, much of it from the contentions of US officials themselves. The US State Department preferred to see him, as former spokesman PJ Crowley did in 2010, a political actor with a political agenda, rather than being a journalist.

Incidentally, Crowleys link with WikiLeaks has a curious end, with his resignation in 2011 following comments made about the treatment of Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning at the Quantico marine base in Virginia. What is being done to Bradley Manning, he claimed at an MIT seminar that March, is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid on the part of the department of defence. Not an entirely bad egg, then.

View post:
Julian Assange, The Glass Cage And Heaven In A Rage ...

Demonstrators hold signs during a protest called by Catalan National Assembly (ANC) under the motto "Journalism is not a crime" to support WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in Barcelona on February 24, 2020. (Photo by AFP)

Ahmed KaballoPress TV, London

The world watched the proceedings at Woolwich Crown Court in London as Julian Assange the co-founder of Wikileaks fights extradition to the United States. In what amounts to a virtual death sentence, if found guilty, he could face up to 175 years in prison for publishing material that his supporters argue were in the public interest as they exposed US war crimes.

His case is historic as it is the first time a journalist based in the UK faces extradition to the United States for distributing information. Yet some worry that that Assange's right to a fair trial is not being respected.

The key contention between the prosecution representing the United States government and the defense representing Julian Assange is whether or not the Wikileaks co-founder can legally be extradited under the 2003 extradition treaty between Washington and London which appears to prohibit extradition for political offences.

The extradition hearing will continue on May 18, with an expected three weeks of evidence, but a decision could take months and is likely to be appealed against by the losing side. Whatever the outcome and for Assange's supporters and journalists worldwide, the stakes could not be higher.

JulianAssange's extradition case is being described by many as history in the making because of its implications and what it will mean for the future of journalism.

See the original post:
Assanges supporters say concerned over his ... - presstv.com

29 February 2020 The New Dark Age

There may be some duplication due to cross-posting and may be updated throughout the day, so please check back

Aaron Mat, Craig Murray, John Shipton, Angela Richter, Fidel Narvaez, & Sevim Dadelen on Julian Assange

Julian Assange, The Glass Cage And Heaven In A Ragehttps://orientalreview.org/2020/02/29/julian-assange-the-glass-cage-and-heaven-in-a-rage/

Slovenian journalist Bla Zgaga: If Assange is extradited the same can happen to any of ushttp://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/02/29/zgag-f29.html

ASSANGE EXTRADITION: Can a French Touch Pierce a Neo-Orwellian Farce?http://thesaker.is/assange-extradition-can-a-french-touch-pierce-a-neo-orwellian-farce/

Julian Assange Hearing Day Fourhttps://popularresistance.org/julian-assange-hearing-day-four/

This Assange Trial Is A Self-Contradictory Kafkaesque Nightmarehttps://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/02/28/this-assange-trial-is-a-self-contradictory-kafkaesque-nightmare/

Assange Extradition: Can a French Touch Pierce a Neo-Orwellian Farce?https://www.globalresearch.ca/assange-extradition-can-french-touch-pierce-neo-orwellian-farce/5705003

Judge Orders Assange Held in Glass Box During Extradition Trialhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ActivistPost/~3/TKvx3FUEre8/judge-orders-assange-held-in-glass-box-during-extradition-trial.html

Your Man in the Public Gallery Assange Hearing Day Fourhttps://williambowles.info/2020/02/28/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-four/

Punishing the Free Speech of Julian Assangehttps://www.globalresearch.ca/punishing-free-speech-julian-assange/5705027

Julian Assange News Links 28 February 2020https://williambowles.info/2020/02/28/julian-assange-news-links-28-february-2020/

Like Loading...

Related

Excerpt from:
Julian Assange News Links 29 February 2020 The New Dark Age

By RSF in London

During the first week of Wikileaks founder Julian Assanges US extradition hearing in London, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) was concerned by the clear lack of evidence from the US for its charges against Assange.

RSF also remains concerned about Assanges wellbeing and inability to participate properly in his hearing, following reports of mistreatment at Belmarsh prison and the judges rejection of his application to sit with his lawyers in the courtroom.

The hearing will resume from May 18, when three weeks of evidence will be heard.

READ MORE: John Pilger: Julian Assange must be freed, not betrayed

RSF conducted an unprecedented international trial-monitoring mission to the UK for Julian Assanges US extradition hearing from February 24-27, as the prosecution and defence presented their legal arguments at Woolwich Crown Court in London.

RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire and RSF Germany director Christian Mihr joined RSF UK bureau director Rebecca Vincent for the hearing, and Vincent was able to systematically monitor each sitting over the four days.

- Partner -

RSF staff from London, Paris, and Berlin also staged an action outside the adjacent Belmarsh Prison where Assange is being held on February 23, and joined protests outside the court on February 24.

District judge Vanessa Baraitser presided over the hearing. James Lewis QC acted for the US government, and barristers Edward Fitzgerald QC and Mark Summers QC argued in Assanges defence.

US government representatives were present, but did not speak during the hearing.

Judge interrupted AssangeAssange did not take the stand, and his several attempts to speak from the secure dock he was held in at the back of the courtroom were interrupted by the judge, who stated that as he was well represented, he must speak through his lawyers.

Assange is being pursued under a US indictment on the basis of 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one charge under the Computers Fraud and Abuse Act, related to Wikileaks publication in 2010 and 2011 of several hundred thousand military documents and diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning.

These charges carry a combined possible sentence of up to 175 years in prison. The publication of the leaked documents resulted in extensive media reporting on matters of serious public interest including actions of the US in Guantnamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the course of the prosecutions argument, it became clear that the US still has no evidence for its claim that Assange had put sources at serious and imminent risk, but are pursuing the charges based on the risks that he is accused of knowingly causing.

At one point the prosecution said the publication of the leaked documents had led to the disappearance of some sources but with no apparent evidence in support of this claim. The prosecution argued that Assange had damaged the US defence and intelligence capabilities and hurt US interests abroad.

However, the defence argued that these proceedings constitute an abuse of process as the case is being pursued for ulterior political motives and fundamentally misrepresents the facts.

They outlined that Wikileaks had worked for months with a partnership of professional media organisations to redact the leaked documents.

Unredacted datasetThe defence explained that as redaction was in progress, one of the media partners had published a book containing the password to the unredacted dataset, which led to its access and publication by other parties.

The defence outlined how Assange had attempted to mitigate any risk to sensitive sources by notifying the White House and State Department that publication outside of Wikileaks control was potentially forthcoming, imploring them to take action to protect the named individuals.

RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said:

We were not surprised by the prosecutions argument, which again confirmed the lack of evidence for the charges against Mr Assange. This weeks hearing confirmed our belief that he has been targeted for his contributions to public interest reporting. We call again for the UK not to extradite Mr Assange to the US, for the charges against him to be dropped, and for him to be released as a matter of urgent priority.

In arguments around extradition, the defence argued that the Anglo-US Extradition Treaty expressly prevents extradition on the basis of political offences, presenting a bar to Assanges extradition.

They presented that these rights were protected by domestic law as they constituted a cornerstone of the constitution and were enshrined in the Magna Carta, and were further protected by international law, including the European Convention on Extradition, the Model United Nations Extradition Treaty and the Interpol Convention on Extradition.

The prosecution countered that the Extradition Act 2003 contains no provision for extradition to be barred on the basis of political offences and that Assanges actions could not be interpreted as political under English law.

They argued that as the Extradition Treaty had not been incorporated by Parliament, rights could not be derived from it, with James Lewis QC stating at one point that it might surprise other states to know that treaties meant very little when signed by the British government; parliamentary sovereignty meant the rights were only enforceable in a domestic context if ratified by Parliament.

RSF observers remain concerned for Assanges wellbeing, as he appeared very pale and tired throughout the hearing, and complained several times that he could not follow proceedings properly or communicate easily with his legal team from the glass-partitioned dock.

On day two, Assanges lawyer reported that he had been mistreated at Belmarsh prison; after the first day of the hearing, he was strip-searched twice, handcuffed 11 times, moved holding cells five times, and had his legally privileged documents confiscated on entering and exiting the prison.

The judge stated it was not a matter within her jurisdiction. On day four, she rejected his application to be allowed to sit with his lawyers in the courtroom when evidence is given in May, despite the fact that the prosecution did not object to the request.

RSF UK bureau director Rebecca Vincent said:

We remain extremely concerned for Mr Assanges treatment and wellbeing, as he was clearly not well this week and struggled to participate properly in his own hearing. The reports of mistreatment at Belmarsh prison are alarming, and we expect that to be addressed as a matter of urgent priority. We also call for Mr Assange to be allowed to sit next to his legal team in the courtroom in accordance with international standards, and not held in a glass cage like a violent criminal. He is in a vulnerable position and presents no physical threat to anyone, and his rights under the European Convention must be respected.

Two short procedural hearings are scheduled in the coming weeks: a mandatory call-in on March 25 to be heard at Westminster Magistrates Court with Assange joining via video link; and a hearing at Woolwich Crown Court on April 7 where case management and the issue of anonymity of two witnesses will be discussed.

Assange will be required to attend the latter in person. Evidence is then expected to be heard over three weeks from May 18 at Woolwich Crown Court.

The UK and US are respectively ranked 33rd and 48th out of 180 countries on RSFs 2019 World Press Freedom Index.

Pacific Media Watch is a research collaborator with Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

The rest is here:
RSF concerned about lack of evidence in US extradition case ...

There is currently a drama unfolding in a courtroom across the ocean in Great Britain. It is the extradition trial of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. He would be handed over to US authorities if he loses his extradition trial where he is wanted on charges of endangering national security. The specifics of the charges are unknown; we do not know if this goes back to the Bradley Call Me Chelsea Manning leaks, or if it involves later leaks from an anonymous source that revealed technical abilities of the intelligence community apparatus. Standing in the middle is, of course, WikiLeaks publishing the DNC emails during the 2016 US presidential campaign. Regardless, the possibility of a 175-year prison sentence hangs over the head of Assange.

Assange is a polarizing figure and whether he is seen as a hero or a villain depends on the information being released through his organization, WikiLeaks. With the Manning tranche of leaks, these were items that were embarrassing to the United States and some of our allies involving leaked diplomatic cables and certain actions in Afghanistan and Iraq that some consider war crimes (not this author). More disturbing was the release of information describing US electronic intelligence efforts in the war on terrorism. Although likely setting back those efforts when released, the ICs technical apparatus is smart enough to adjust to those revelations.

As for the DNC email release, Trump should be singing the praises of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. In fact, he did during the 2016 campaign. On the trail, Trump referred to Hillary Clinton as crooked and the election as rigged. The crookedness part did not only deal with her own specific email problem, the Clinton Foundation and other assorted sundry Clinton scandals. And he made as much reference to a rigged general election as he did to the Democrat nomination process where he often cast Bernie Sanders as the victim of that rigging, with Clinton pulling the strings. The WikiLeaks releases pretty much confirmed that observation.

However, the Trump administration is not singing the praises of Assange and WikiLeaks and is instead seeking extradition to this country so he can stand trial under the Espionage Act. There are the obvious legal problems associated with this action. The normal course of action is to prosecute the leaker of classified information, not the publisher of that information. It is why Bradley Manning spent time in Leavenworth after delivering pilfered documents to WikiLeaks.

It could be that Trump is simply trying to make a huge example of the ultimate publisher of classified material. It is no secret that the Trump administration has been plagued by a plethora of leaks from almost Day One of his administration. Obtaining a conviction against Assange and WikiLeaks would send a huge message to legacy media outlets that would publish leaked information. But, this strategy would be rife with pitfalls. There are the obvious First Amendment hurdles to overcome and no guarantee a fair and impartial trial could be conducted, and if it could whether it would result in a conviction.

It must also be considered that Assange is not exactly loved by the Democrats. Hillary Clinton said of him: I think Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator. I mean, hes the tool of Russian intelligence. In response to the DNC leaks, the leadership of the Democrats and the media did not rebuke the party for obvious bias in favor of Clinton, but flipped the narrative so that Assange and Russia became the focus of criticism. We already know how the Democrats will frame an extradition and trial if it ever comes to pass: Trump is throwing his partner in crime under the bus. Sadly, there are voters and the media who will buy into it, such is TDS these days.

One is left with the impression the potential extradition and charges against Assange are simply a political ploy in the ongoing battle between Trump and Democrats and that Assange is a pawn in that battle. It must be remembered that this is happening against a backdrop of Attorney General Barr investigating the origin of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. Specifically, did the FBI, IC and Democrat Party hatch a scheme to portray Trump as beholden to the will of the Kremlin?

It is easy to forget that there is a Durham investigation right now. The media certainly seldom, if ever, reports on it yet we were privy to every Mueller dud of a bombshell almost weekly. Many pundits believe there is a raging behind-the-scenes battle between Trump and Democrats which explains their continual belief in Russian interference, the endless investigations, the inevitable impeachment part 2, and other efforts by the Democrats. It is a race to destroy Trump before he destroys them.

This where Assange enters the picture. Assuming he is extradited and charged and faces a lengthy prison sentence, he may- or may not- be persuaded to reveal the source of the DNC leaks. It would expose the whole Russiagate nonsense if it can conclusively be proven that the source of those stories was not Russia, but a disgruntled DNC insider. It would exonerate the reputations of so many Trump associates in his campaign and administration. It would blow the Russian interference narrative out of the water. In short, it would shed a light on the biggest scandal in American history. And who better to deliver that blow than the ultimately most effective whistle-blower of modern times- Julian Assange?

Understandably anxious to clear the name of Trump, it is conceivable that the Administration could offer Assange a slap on the wrists in exchange for putting Russiagate to rest. There are two questions remaining, however. The first is whether Assange would agree to such a deal. In 2017, he emphatically stated the source of the DNC leak was not a state actor, and that is all he has said. Does he risk putting his reputation as a journalist on the line to save his own neck? Does he even still believe he has a reputation to preserve? This writer is not suggesting a pardon such as that intimated at in that courtroom in England where Trump, through Dana Roshrabacher, is alleged to have offered a pardon in exchange for Assange naming the DNC leaker.

Secondly, one must ask whether such an attempt would be, in effect, weaponizing the prosecution of someone being accused of violating the Espionage Act for political gain. It is becoming more obvious that the Obama administration did just that with Operation Crossfire Hurricane. However, there is a difference. In other words, does the Trump administration do what the Obama administration did?

If they are going after Assange for publishing the electronic intelligence source leaks or the Manning leaks, these clearly had serious national security implications. The DNC release did not. Those leaks were barely a blip on the political radar outside the Beltway. It merely confirmed what most people, including most Democrats, already knew: the DNC was all-in for Hillary Clinton in 2016. The intelligence community survived the electronics leaks and the military survived the Manning leaks. In many ways, they are old history. The effects of the DNC leaks, which were part and parcel of the whole Russian collusion hoax, persist to this day. One can say that the entire Russia hoax was a greater threat to our national security than Bradley Manning ever was because it is an ongoing attempt to overthrow a duly elected President.

If nothing else, it is worth the old college try. Either Trump gets Assange to admit that the source of his leaks came from within the DNC and not Russia, or he can send a strong message to those who would publish leaks that their legal life will be a living Hell. He has the Espionage Act on his side as a wedge between truth and Assanges principles.

Often, the process is the punishment. Just ask George Papadopolous, Carter Page, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and any other target in the Obama administrations attempted coup.

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

View post:
The Assange Affair: What Is Trump's Endgame?

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech. First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

In the oral argument of the famous U.S. Supreme Court cases known collectively as the Pentagon Papers Case, the late Justice William O. Douglas asked a government lawyer if the Department of Justice views the no law language in the First Amendment to mean literally no law. The setting was an appeal of the Nixon administrations temporarily successful efforts to bar The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing documents stolen from the Department of Defense by a civilian employee, Daniel Ellsberg.

The documents were a government-written history of the Vietnam War, which revealed that President Lyndon B. Johnson and his secretaries of defense and state and the militarys top brass materially misrepresented the status of the war to the American people. Stated differently, they regularly, consistently and systematically lied to the public and the news media.

Though LBJ was retired, Nixon did not want this unvarnished version of the war he was still fighting to make its way into the public arena. The Nixon DOJ persuaded a federal district court judge to enjoin the publication of the documents because they contained classified materials and they had been stolen.

In a landmark decision, the court ruled that all truthful matters material to the public interest that come into the hands of journalists no matter how they get there may lawfully be disseminated. That does not absolve the thief though the case against Ellsberg was dismissed because the FBI committed crimes against him during his prosecution but it does insulate the publisher absolutely against civil and criminal liability.

The Pentagon Papers Case is a profound explication of one of the great values underlying the freedom of speech; namely, the government cannot lawfully punish those who publish truths it hates and fears.

After his administration lost the case and the Times and the Post published the documents, Nixon attempted to distinguish his presidency and administration of the War from LBJs, but he did not challenge the truthfulness of the publications.

Regrettably, the Trump administration is pretending the Pentagon Papers Case does not exist. It is manifesting that pretense in its criminal pursuit of international gadfly and journalist Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Sometime in 2010, Assange and his colleagues began receiving classified U.S. Department of Defense materials from an Army intelligence officer now known as Chelsea Manning.

Manning committed numerous crimes, for which she pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Her sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama, whose Department of Justice publicly declined to prosecute Assange in deference to the once universal acceptance of the Pentagon Papers Case and the numerous court rulings that have followed it.

The Trump DOJ, however, sought and obtained two indictments of Assange, who is now charged with 17 counts of espionage and faces 175 years in prison. Assange is currently being held in a maximum-security prison outside of London. The U.S. has sought his extradition at a proceeding that began in a London courtroom this week.

When lawyers blatantly reject well-accepted law for some political gain, they violate their oaths to uphold the law. When government lawyers do this, they also violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution. For them, there is no escaping the Pentagon Papers Case. While the case turned on the concept of prior restraint of speech, it clearly reflects the views of the court that it matters not how the publisher obtained the secrets that he published.

WikiLeaks revealed in partnership with major international publications, including the two involved in the Pentagon Papers Case videos of American troops murdering civilians and celebrating the murders (a war crime) as well as documentary proof of American complicity in torture (also a war crime).

Just as in the Pentagon Papers revelations, neither the Obama nor the Trump administration has questioned the truthfulness of the WikiLeaks publication even though they revealed murderous wrongdoing, duplicity at the highest levels of government and the names of American intelligence sources (which some mainstream publications declined to make known).

Assange fears that he cannot get a fair trial in the United States. The government says he can and will. When the government suddenly became interested in fair trials remains a mystery. Yet, arguments about fairness miss the point of this lawless prosecution. A journalist is a gatherer and disseminator of facts and opinions. The governments argument that because he communicated with Manning and helped Manning get the data into WikiLeaks hands, Assange somehow crossed the line from protected behavior to criminal activity shows a pitiful antipathy to personal freedom.

Democracy dies in darkness. The press is the eyes and ears of an informed public. And those eyes and ears need a nose, so to speak. They need breathing room. It is the height of naivete to think that Ellsberg just dropped off the Pentagon Papers at the Times and the Post, without some coordination with those publications coordination that the courts assume exist and implicitly protect.

Might all of this be part of the Trump administrations efforts to chill the free speech of its press critics to deny them breathing room? After all, it has referred to them as sick, dishonest, crazed, unpatriotic, unhinged and totally corrupt purveyors of fake news.

Yet the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to assure open, wide, robust debate about the government, free from government interference and threats. How can that debate take place in darkness and ignorance?

If no law doesnt really mean no law, we are deluding ourselves, and freedom is not reality. It is merely a wished for fantasy.

The rest is here:
Napolitano: Punishing the free speech of Julian Assange - Daily Herald

The Julian Assange case has finally broken into the mainstream as he sits in a bulletproof glass box in Woolwich Crown "Fort. The publisher of WikiLeaks has been wanted by successive US administrations and, according to Assange's council, Edward Fitzgerald, the US had not just filmed every aspect of Assange's life in the sovereign embassy of Ecuador in London, but had actively considered his death. There are signs of increasing anxieties about Assange's case stretching from NGOs through the New York Times to the leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition in the British Parliament. A steady stream of prominent American writers has been heading to the unlikely London destination of Belmarsh. One of the more distinguished of which is Joe Lauria, Editor-in-Chief of Consortium News, formerly of the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe. So all the way from Virginia via Belmarsh, he came into the Sputnik to tell us more.

The Sandinistas overthrew one of the worst Latin American dictators, Somoza, way back in 1979 and began re-building a country in which thousands had died, where over half a million were left homeless and there was a devastated economic infrastructure. They stood and were defeated in 1990, but their re-election in 2006 was a major blow to US Latin American policy. Under their leadership, the economy grew, poverty was reduced and, according to the UN, the country now ranks fifth in gender equality! But it seems the regime change machine in Washington is back and hard at work again. With crippling sanctions in place, could Nicaragua be following in the footsteps of Venezuela? Professor Daniel Kovalik teaches at the Pittsburgh School of Law as well as works as a labor and human rights lawyer. He is also a supreme authority on Latin America and its tortured relations with the "giantto the north,so we invited him into the Sputnik studio to tell us about his documentary on Nicaragua and his latest book on Venezuela.

Follow@RT_sputnik

Podcasthttps://soundcloud.com/rttv/sets/sputnik-orbiting-the-world

Go here to see the original:
Julian Assange trial and Nicaragua now (E321) RT Sputnik Orbiting the World - RT