Julian Assange came into the glass-walled side dock of Westminster Magistrates Court around 1pm yesterday, dressed in head-to-toe black, with a grey man bun, and a slightly unkempt beard, walking under his own steam, calm and, god help us, with a touch of insouciance.
Among the 20 or so journos in the court, and another 40 or so journos crowded into the public gallery, there was a touch of surprise. In the preceding two hours all of us had seen footage of his arrest at the Ecuadorian embassy that morning, a bearded wild man, carried out, kicking all the way.
Now here he was, in the dock, the magistrate at the bench, a silence hanging over the court.
“This hiatus is,” Judge Mark Snow said, “because we are waiting for your legal team.”
“I don’t think they know we’ve started,” Assange said, through the slats in the glass.
Snow looked wearied, as if this happened all the time.
“Would someone get them in…?”
In the interim, Assange read a book. Gore Vidal, one of his late self-contained essays, On the American National Security State. He held it up a little too visibly, and pointed it at the press corps, but ehhhhhh. Scribblers from the red-tops conferred in Essex accents.
“What’s the book?”
Scribblers from the broadsheets with languid Oxbridge accents helped them out. It’s not impossible there was a male-female dynamic in the air.
“Oh yah, it’s Vidal. V-I-D-A-L. He’s a novelist mostly…”
Etc.
The lawyers and WikiLeaks folk arrived, Kristinn Hrafnsson and Jennifer Robinson in the back of the court. On the other end of the lawyers table, a man stood up, and in a British accent…
“Your honour … I represent the United States government …”
There it was. Nine years this had been coming, and here we were. That morning Julian Assange, founder and leader of WikiLeaks, had been arrested in the embassy, after the Ecuadorian government had withdrawn protection and invited the UK police in.
The proximate charge was jumping bail — in 2012, when Assange entered the embassy. But the real deal is a US extradition request, on a charge of conspiracy to steal classified information, the specific accusation that he had helped dissident soldier Chelsea Manning steal and crack hundreds of thousands of classified military files, relating to the criminal conduct of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the cynical manipulation of global affairs as registered in the diplomatic cables of the US over 40 years.
Team Assange had a defence on the jumping bail thing:
“Your honour, my client had a reasonable fear that from remand he would be extradited to the US.”
That was received reasonably.
“Also that the previous presiding judge Lady Arbuthnot, did not recuse herself …”
That was not.
“You had ample time to raise this issue, and now you are traducing the reputation of a fine judge…” Snow went on. I thought of Peter Cook’s great monologue of the summing-up of the Jeremy Thorpe trial: “You have ruined the reputation of one of the most pretty defendants.”
Once Assange had been found guilty of skipping bail, it got even weirder.
“Your situation is a product of your narcissism,” said the magistrate clearly riled. He did not want the situation of Justice Lady Arbuthnot further explored.
I am happy to do so.
Lady Arbuthnot, who ruled on the lawfulness of Assange’s continued criminalisation in the UK in 2015, is the wife of Lord Arbuthnot, a Conservative who has held multiple defence industry posts over the last two decades.
This sally got short shrift, but it seemed to me intended to do so.
Although when I asked a member of the legal team how it had all gone, they said “well, you saw that shit show in there”.
So perhaps not.
Assange is now on remand awaiting sentencing for the fleeing bail charge — the Magistrates Court having transferred it to the Crown Court, so a larger maximum sentence of 12 months instead of six, can be awarded. Is that a plan too? That would forestall extradition for long enough for Jeremy Corbyn to become PM, at which point extradition would be refused. But it may be just all screaming chaos.
Over in the Commons, Brexit was being delayed to the end of October, the extension having been accepted apparently, and energy is now turning to the European elections and the self-dismemberment of the Conservative Party.
Outside the court, journos joked about the usual Assange scuttlebutt — his cat, his socks, etc — and essentially validated every critique of mainstream media that WikiLeaks has ever made: that the profession is full of natural sycophants, who spruik cynicism and call it even-handedness, who speak power to truth, who wilfully mistake the adrenaline rush of the micro-scoop and the petty scandal for genuine contestation.
It’s only with this most recent charge — abetting the “stealing of secrets” — that some have started to take notice. Because if you can be pinged for allegedly helping someone crack encrypted copied files, then what about if you coaxed them to blow the whistle with a few phone calls? What if you printed out their documents? Or had them translated, or legalled, or… etc? Does that make you a co-conspirator? The Assange case is the criminalisation of investigative journalism.
That won’t matter to most. The WikiLeaks project is inconvenient to anyone who would prefer to avoid the awful truth: that our lives are shaped by the exercise of power by great blocs, corporate and national. Politicians, academics, journalists — it shames all those who would prefer to live inside the whale, warm in the blubber of work and Netflix, and whatever.
The gleeful cynicism expressed by numerous media types whenever WikiLeaks has a setback is evidence of this. The project disturbs accommodation to power so exactly as to expose those who should be most ashamed of doing so, from commercial TV flotsam, to hip website stalwarts now rushing to News Corp to keep them in the game.
Of little consolation to Assange, now banged up, but still displaying a fighting spirit.
“Perhaps you could waive objection to extradition, and get on with your life,” the justice said, which received a sarcastic two-handed thumbs-up.
As they say, The Trial continues.
Sounds similar to Oscar Wilde’s court case.
Thanks for the actual news. Much more interesting than brexit. The MSM versions of Assange are so annoyingly tainted with hypocrisy or cut/paste skin in the game bias.
British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt (possibly a relative of our gHunt given his serial mendacity & incompetence) said in a statement. “He has hidden from the truth for years & year…”!
I thought the charge against Assange was revealing Truth – goose/gander kinda thang?
Oh yes! It’s easy for these government types to sit back & pass judgement when they’re not sitting in this type of position…
applet, that’s what people are always going to get from MSN, no surprises there… They have a brand of laziness that is largely set up for them to do as little investigation, but get as much exposure as they can…
Guy – to me as a mere punter out here in punter land – you simplistically conflate Assange with Wikileaks, and Wikileaks with investigative journalism. Peter Greste, a journalist who spent time in actual prison, has dismantled the investigative journalism claim (in the Age and SMH). And other senior Wikileakers appear to have had a gutful of Assange years ago (eg Domscheit-Berg) saying he couldn’t be trusted to handle material without putting sources at risk. Just because you are waging war against the US spook juggernaut doesn’t make you a martyr who can shred other people’s lives along the way. Calling him a narcissist was very un-juridical but certainly has the ring of truth.
“Couldn’t be trusted to handle material without putting sources at risk..”. WTF? Though the wikileaks model was painstakingly designed to protect sources? Are you refering to the claim that releasing the Afghan war diaries unedited meant Afghanis working with US troops were thereby exposed to Taliban eyes? I believe there were serious arguments in wikileaks about whether the names should be redacted. The three publishers which received the documents in advance- The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel- may have had some influence. Narcissist? Is the belief that there is a cause worth risking everything for because it is right and necessary and bigger than yourself- is that narcissism? Because I have a quite different definition of narcissism
WTF??? .. try reading these for at least two major collaborators who soured on the great man:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/10/wikileaks-legal-action-daniel-domscheit-berg
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/jan/06/wikileaks-julian-assange
Meantime Morrison & Shorten assure Assange of Oz ‘consular assistance’ ie: pretty much zilch.
Assange is in a parlous position, the US tarantula is almost upon him. Apart from complaining to our federal politicians (currently busy electioneering & fighting to save their own skins) what can we do?
I would call in Dan Mori who was the military lawyer for Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks to join Team Assange. He knows all the dirty tricks David had to go through. He would sort them out. Dan now lives in Australia.
I would also nominate Christine Assange as the Mother of the Year!
Yes Dan Morie would be the best legal counsel that Julian Assange can get… He will be able to appear & sort out the truth from the lies that US government has relied on to continue to pursue him since having to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian consulate…
Yes. What happened to David Hicks, and is now happening to Julian Assange shows our weak our government are when it comes to standing up to the U.S war machine.
“Continuing consular assistance”, Zut, so absolutely zilch.
That’s why he ended up going to the Ecuadorian consulate in the first place, as the Australian consulate didn’t want to do anything & turned him away if I remember rightly, here we go Australian wont or can’t or is to lily livered to look after it’s own citizens overseas..
Though some numpty thought it was a good idea to raise the Swedish rape allegations,(just after his arrest) though the statutes of limitations have well & truly expired on these accusations (& both parties admitted that their was no rape as both were consensual from what I read), I also wonder how much money was given & by whom to these ”victims”, so this is about the only thing that piques my interest, this also a nonstarter as well.. I just wonder where the British are going to go with this as the US are still fumbling through this whole utter debacle..
The interesting part is that the media are having a great time, I suppose (it gives them a break from the Brexit stupidity) the rest of us just feel either over it or just more than a little confused…
Excellent piece Mr Rundle. Many Australian journalists are ambivalent about Julian Assange. “Narcissist”, “anarchist”, etc. But by definition and now extensive publications Julian Assange is both a publisher and a journalist and is entitled to the First Amendment (freedom of the press) protections of the US constitution in the event that his extradition is granted by the UK. Glenn Greenwald has written about the best analysis in the intercept.com sorting out what is behind the Trump DOJ’s current indictment of Assange. We need precision in covering/understanding what, at law, is behind the extradition of Julian Assange. After The New York Times and The Washington Post were vindicated by the Supreme Court over their publication of the Pentagon Papers (illegally leaked to them by Daniel Ellsberg), Assange’s conduct in his relationship with Chelsea Manning for the Wikileaks trove is now at issue. Assange is an Australian citizen. Australia is entitled to make representations to the UK and the US to ensure his rights at law are protected.
Well said Quentin, I would suggest he needs an experienced lawyer like Dan Morie, to represent him as the US are looking to do as much damage to him as they possibly can, so that they can extradite him to the US, if our country won’t or can’t stand up to the US, he could find himself in real strife, they want to try him in their own country (that wont bode well) without the legal backing that he may need in court to support him, this is likely to give them the opportunity to railroad him into taking the blame for much of the US’s error’s in law around their previous interference in international business… Yes Julian Assange is a whistle blower, but he shouldn’t be held to account for the fact that much of the information that was leaked, was basically the US’s international interference (that they didn’t want anyone to know about) in the middle east & northern africa, when they should have stayed out of it..
It remains to be seen what happens next…
Thanks Guy for that mention of the late, great Peter Cook. I often recall some of his great lines – much more pertinent to many current situations than the usual scribbler comes up with.
Here’s the whole thing: Peter Cook’s monologue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
A judge with a penchant for amateur psychology AND a sense of humour. Jeez, he lucked out there didn’t he.
The powers that be think of Assange the same way they thought of commoners before the magna carta and what has passed for democracy in the interim: “How does a scumbag like you summon up the termerity to think you get a say in any of this shit?”
Everyone has to make up their own minds whether the world would be better off if he had just – y’know – bought a commodore, picked a footy team, acquired a taste for good reds and given up on anything more substantial like most of his brethren from the burbs of melbs.
Did you see Scomo smirking behind Marissa Payne during this morning’s news whilst she pontificated about consular assistance? What an arse!
The meeja here are highly conflicted – they daren’t be journalists and advocate for press freedom because JA obviates their self appointed/satisfied roles as Gate Keepers on information.
Maybe they’ll just try to do the mudorc’s bidding by trying to skewer bumBoil Shlernt into taking a coff, coff .. “position” on the matter.
That could be an own goal were Mr Shouty be urged to opine as well.
Lose/lose and we’ll all be losers.