Just over 10 years ago, Julian Assange’s lawyer Gareth Peirce, wrote a letter to the PM of Australia, Kevin Rudd, that eerily described what eventually came to pass in Britain.  It was hand-delivered by Malcolm Turnbull, a subsequent PM. She wrote:

Letter: Gareth Peirce to Mi… by swedenversusassange

https://www.scribd.com/document/72747954/Letter-Gareth-Peirce-to-Minister-Rudd

The letter described Julian Assange’s ‘alternate’ future, had he been extradited to Sweden. He was not facing charges there, but he was facing immediate imprisonment, solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day and indefinite detention - on NO charges, as yet. He was there for questioning only, but there was no time limit to pre-trial detention in Sweden. This was “due process” for foreigners and suspects in sexual misconduct allegations, BEFORE they had been charged with any crime. They couldn’t apply for bail and even family visits were forbidden. Only a lawyer and priest could speak with them.

Swedish remand prisons had been described by Birgitta Winberg, the president of International Prison Chaplains’ Association Worldwide, as ’the worst in Europe’:

“In no other country”, she said, “are people in isolation before they are charged”.

And if a US indictment were to come through in the meantime for Assange, within days or years this process could be interrupted by Sweden to “loan” Assange to the US under the two countries’ Temporary Surrender Treaty – no questions asked.

It was a neater arrangement, a fast-track version you might say, of what eventually transpired in the UK. Assange secured Ecuador’s protection for another five good years of publishing, but the same net eventually tightened around him. The same indefinite detention and torture of isolation that Sweden had planned, with a hand-over to the US looming – like now in the UK – despite a prohibitive Extradition Treaty with the US for political offences; and despite the exposure over time of countless violations of due process across Sweden, the UK and the US – including CIA spying on the defence and most recently its utterly lawless kidnap or kill plan under the Trump Administration. The court knows now from expert witness Maureen Baird that if extradited, Assange’s future would be determined by the CIA – effectively those who were planning to kill him. It didn’t happen in 2012 and it may be time now to admit “Game Over” and drop the charges.

#Assange: My follow-up letter of 12 Sept asking #Sweden to explain, point by point, the #HumanRights compliance of 50 perceived due process violations, to conduct a prompt & impartial investigation and reiterating my unanswered queries of 28 May. Link: https://t.co/yc33dCgFFi pic.twitter.com/JIHpJxVyMx

— Nils Melzer (@NilsMelzer) November 11, 2019

House intel committee has asked CIA for info in recent @yahoonews story about agency plans under Pompeo to abduct Julian Assange from Ecuadorian Embassy and other extreme measures. @zachsdorfman @SkullduggeryPod @dklaidman @VBass https://t.co/sSp1GMn6rH

— Michael Isikoff (@Isikoff) October 19, 2021

Gareth Peirce included two links for PM Rudd to visit. The first, still online, informs him about what’s going on in the US in 2011. We discover: 
“ Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said that the military has enlisted FBI agents in its investigation of the matter, which could mean that someone who is not a uniformed US military person is about to be charged, or has been.”

The FBI investigation would include a non-authorised field trip to Iceland to work with a potential witness against Assange, Sigurdur Thordarson, on what was exposed in the Icelandic parliament and in recent admissions by Thordarson, as an entrapment and false testimony plan. The Interior Minister of Iceland, Ögmundur Jónasson, said the FBI had deceived Icelandic authorities about their activity in Iceland.

Prosecution witnesses Sabu & Siggi: hackers who tried to entrap each other, not realising they were both working for FBI

The DoJ also deceived the UK by with-holding Thordarson’s name (and long criminal record) in their 2nd superseding indictment. The prosecution deceived the court by with-holding prison documents attesting to Assange’s mental health and mis-represented expert medical opinion at the US Appeal review on August 11. The US will assert Assange is a malingerer, and in any case, as prosecution witness Nigel Blackwood says,

“suicidal tendencies can be managed with the right kind of medication”.

There’s been a lot more massaging of the legal framework to do than in Sweden, and much more fallout as the ‘not cricket’ scandals unfold.

10 years ago, Gareth Peirce also alerted Australia’s PM to the US’s poor record in adhering to extradition assurances. Dated May 13 2010, her paper was entitled:
“America’s Non-Compliance - Gareth Peirce presents the case against extradition”

Peirce reports on how, under threat of disproportionate punishment, the US coerces defendants into 90% guilty pleas; or witness compliancy with impunity – such as Thordason was offered, plus expenses. She also cites the US’s history of non-adherence to rendition assurances:

“Twice the foreign secretary has had to come before Parliament to apologise for the fact that US promises concerning rendition had not been kept; and in 2008 the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recommended that US assurances should no longer be accepted, given the country’s continuing denials that its interrogative practices met the universal definition of torture.”

Peirce adds, way back then, that US non-compliance with conventions on human rights and torture included non-ratification of its own regional convention on human rights. She wrote:

While it is a party to the UN Convention against Torture, it has never ratified the treaty’s optional protocol, and it doesn’t accept the right of individual petition to the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. In those countries which have signed up, UN special rapporteurs on torture carry out unannounced inspections, intended to get behind the façade of impressive constitutions. They dig out grim truths and their reports are often biting and always public. America doesn’t even accept the application of its own regional American Convention on Human Rights, which it signed but has never ratified. Thus no individual in the US can have recourse to the Convention’s enforcement body, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. Petitions can be sent to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, but its reports are not binding and findings are consistently ignored.

So where are we today? The UN considers more than 14 days in solitary confinement as torture, but the US has been holding prisoners in isolation for up to 44 years, says former CIA whistleblower and segregated prisoner John Kiriakou.

Peirce demonstrates how the US, rather than complying, instead persuades or coerces other states and their institutions to comply with what it wants, regardless of convention. We have seen this play out, arguably with reckless zeal in the UK, in documented CPS manipulation of the Swedish Prosecution Service and the FCO’s role in turning Ecuador’s President against international law and Article 41 of his own Constitution. We see it in recent reports of UK counterparts of CIA agreeing to execute a shoot-out in the streets of London in the absence of any charge against Assange from the US.

10 years ago Peirce reached out to warn Australia of how the US would likely operate to get its man. Rudd and his successors do nothing, and in the fullness of time, ‘Plan B: UK’ comes to resemble ‘Plan A: Sweden’. A gateway has now been opened for a “Hail Mary pass”, in the words of Prof Bill Hogan, to discredit the expert testimony of Professor Micael Kopelman.

  
Both Hogan and clinical psychologist Lissa K. Johnson suggest that the US could run into difficulty having it dismissed. Lord Justice Holroyde and Lord Justice of England and Wales Ian Duncan Burnett will decide.

T2T also thanks Bob Carr for wasting Christine Assange’s precious time on 2UE with copious information about what happens where there are “charges”.

The Hon Julia Gillard MP

Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600                                                                                    4 June 2012

Dear Prime Minister,

RE: JULIAN ASSANGE

Regrettably we feel compelled to write to you about the plight of Mr Assange.

You will know that many Australians are angry, disappointed and even confused about your government’s response to Mr Assange’s situation.  They feel that way because they care:  they care about civil liberties, they care about freedom of speech, they care about truth and they care about democracy.

Many people fear that Mr Assange’s greatest enemy may not be the United States or Sweden but rather the indifference demonstrated by his own Government, our Government.

Many are wondering why your only contribution to the debate has been initial accusations of illegal conduct followed by muted silence. Why?

As you know, there is currently a 14 day stay on the UK Supreme Court judgment but it is very likely that Mr Assange, an online publisher and journalist, will be extradited to Sweden.  We think that the letter from Mr Assange’s lawyer , Gareth Peirce, to the then Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd dated 25 October 2011; the detailed brief provided to several members of the Australian Parliament by Finers Stephens Innocent in March 2011; the recent article by the Australian Centre of Independent Journalism; and the Fair Trials International note which explains what will happen to Mr Assange once he is taken to Sweden, highlight the reasons for our Government to be concerned.

The Government has said that it has and will continue to provide the same consular assistance offered to any Australian caught up in a legal matter overseas.  That ignores the facts (raised by Mr Tony Kevin, now retired from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) that not only is this not a standard consular issue, but that “David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib received similarly worthless consular access from Howard and Ruddock at the times they were rendered with Australian Government consent to years of torture in Guantanamo. Both men were being abusively treated in Pakistan and Egypt while on their way to Guantanamo, as Australian consular officers looked on impotently.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Carr asserts that no Australian has received more consular support in a comparable period than Mr Assange.  You need only refer the Government to assistance provided to one Mr Thompson (just one week after he was detained in Baghdad, in May 2006, with a cache of arms) to see that the assertion is wrong. It is perhaps also worth mentioning the assistance provided to those caught up in drug cases in Bali.

We understand that Mr Assange asked for assistance from the Ambassador while in Sweden, which wasn’t forthcoming, and that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade later denied that any request had been made.  In any case, no consular assistance was offered while he was in Sweden.

The Senate Official Committee Hansard report of February 24, 2011 shows that Mr Assange was provided with a copy of the Consular Services Charter on December 7, 2010. Of how much use was that?

In November 2011 Mr Assange’s lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, confirmed that the Australian Ambassador in Sweden had agreed to convey questions from Mr Assange’s defence team to the Swedish prosecutor’s office, but said they offered little more. She pointed out that “correspondence was limited to requests to arrange seating in court and requests for briefings on case progress. There was little contact.”

It was only after The Age newspaper approached the Foreign Affairs Department on 25 October 2011 that a response was sent to Mr Assange’s British lawyer, Gareth Peirce, in response to a letter of concern Mr Turnbull had hand delivered to Mr Rudd’s office on 22 September 2011.

We understand that up until November 2011 the High Commission’s help in the United Kingdom was confined to calls to Mr Assange’s lawyers requesting ‘tickets’ to the court hearings. No real and practical help was ever offered.  That same month the Consul-General in the United Kingdom, Mr Pascoe, finally requested a briefing on the case.

We are unable to ascertain whether or not a letter from prominent expatriates handed to the High Commission in December 2011 was responded to. Perhaps you would kindly confirm that it was?

Despite the fact that the Government asserts that it has no information from the United States to indicate that it has laid, or is about to lay, any charges against Mr Assange, or evidence that a sealed indictment already exists, we are kept in the dark about exactly what questions our Government has asked, what assurances have been sought and what information our officials have received.

Various Freedom of Information requests have revealed:

• that the Australian embassy in Washington knew of an “active and vigorous inquiry into whether  Julian Assange can be charged under US law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act” and that the “WikiLeaks case was unprecedented both in its scale and nature”;
• that Australian diplomats have requested “advanced warning of any public announcement of the results of US investigations or proposed actions”, but have raised no concerns about the Australian journalist being pursued by US prosecutors on charges of espionage and conspiracy;
• that Washington provided Canberra with regular updates, including reporting on the issuing of subpoeanas to compel WikiLeaks associates to appear before a grand jury in Virginia, and US State Department efforts to access Twitter and other internet accounts; and
• that the Australian embassy has obtained “confidential or legal commentary“ from private law firms “on aspects surrounding WikiLeaks and/or the positions of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning.”

Washington embassy cables sent to Canberra between 1 November 2010 and 31 January 2012 do not contain any references to representations made by Australian diplomats to US officials concerning proper extradition processes, even though we were assured by Attorney-General Nicola Roxon in April this year that they had.  We note the timing of Ms Roxon’s representations to Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich, US Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and US Deputy Attorney-General James Cole.

We understand that the Australian Government has made representations to the Swedish Government about due process being applied to Mr Assange, and that assurances to that effect have been given by the Swedish Government.  But again, we are kept in the dark about exactly what questions were asked and the terms of the assurances received.

We don’t even know whether the Government has expressed any concerns – and there should be deep concerns – about the way in which charges were laid, investigated and dropped, only to be picked up again by a different prosecutor; about how Mr Assange’s police interview turned up in the tabloid Expressen the day after he was interviewed on 30 August 2010; why the Swedish Prosecutor, Ms Marianne Ny refused to accept Mr Assange’s offer to return to Sweden for interview on 9^th and 10^th of October 2010 and his offer to be interviewed at the Swedish Embassy in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance scheme between Sweden and the United Kingdom; about a contentious Swedish action having an Australian citizen electronically tagged and under house arrest without charge for 545 days, or about a Swedish prosecutor authorising an Interpol Red Notice for Mr Assange when he was required merely for questioning.

We find it disturbing that Mr Assange’s mother, Christine, felt compelled to respond on Twitter to recent government assurances about consular support provided to Mr Assange, as follows:

“Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask US not 2 put him under “Special Administrative Measures” in prison (no touch torture). Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask US 2 ask those who had publicly incited murder against him 2 retract statements. Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask Sweden under Prisoner Transfer Program that any sentence B served in Australia.  Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 grant him safe passage home from the UK & Sweden at end of proceedings.  Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask Sweden 2 grant bail (unquestioned, uncharged, didn’t breach UK bail conditions). Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Gov 2 ask Swedish PM, AG, FM, 2 stop misleading public re: case FACTS, & smearing him in public. Request denied.”

It is very difficult to accept that, and we fail to see how the Government’s actions to date in relation to Mr Assange’s plight or the level of consular support he allegedly received are “something to be proud of“.

Mr Assange’s case obviously is politically charged.  Governments may not be able to interfere in the legal processes of other countries, but there are plenty of precedents where governments have acted diplomatically to prevent legal processes from being invoked or continued.  The Australian Government clearly has that capacity and should exercise it.

Mr Assange and WikiLeaks have given people all over the world, including the Australian people, a glimpse of the truth behind the spin, of the grubby guile behind the veneer of smooth diplomacy, and of the appalling disdain that people in power have for human life, let alone human rights.  We have a right and a need to know these truths, and all Mr Assange and WikiLeaks have done is give us some scope to exercise those rights.

We call on the Australian Government to take all steps it can to assist Mr Assange, both by providing direct real assistance to him, including any necessary financial support for his legal representation and family support, and by exploring and utilising all diplomatic channels that may be available to obviate his further persecution through formal legal channels.

Yours faithfully

Gary Kennedy

Secretary

Newcastle Trades Hall Council

Gary Kennedy, Secretary NTHC

The Newcastle Trades Hall Council (NTHC) currently has 22 Unions affiliated which cover most work areas and job designations in the Hunter. The Newcastle Trades Hall Council is the peak Union body in the Hunter and works closely with Unions NSW and the Australian Council of Trade Unions ( A.C.T.U. )

This co-operation means that State and National campaigns are co-ordinated and run on behalf of Unions by the NTHC.

-

It will be interesting to see how PM Gillard responds…