By Davy Hoyau
First read Craig Murray's report on the Weistminster court session: Assange in Court 382 This point of view is unique because it calls on the psycho-affective dimension, which happens to be the key to the whole affair. The quotations are taken from this article
When I read Felicity Ruby's report on her visits to Julian Assange ( newsnet.fr), I remembered those of a young woman journalist who, at the time, also visited Billy Milligan, the man of twenty-four personalities on whom justice was focusing for political reasons. From trial to trial, while hope was still present, he saw his sentence extended well beyond the sentence for which he had initially been sentenced, without a decade in prison under supervision for unrecoverable psychotics being counted to erase his sentence.
In addition to the extraordinary aspect of the character himself, on which too little has been written, probably because his case almost touches on the supernatural, Billy Milligan's biographer, Daniel Keyes, has not failed to denounce the prison regime, the place of all violations and abuses, immorality and injustice. How can a man rebuild himself in such a destabilizing environment?
Billy Milligan's epic allows us to have a more precise and broader vision of what Julian Assange is facing. The difference is that if Billy Milligan were in Assange's place today, he would have already escaped without any difficulty. Because there is always hope.
The advantage of having a collapsed personality, which can very well happen in Assange (and which can happen to everyone), is that the multiple personalities become capable, after getting to know each other, of working in a group. Thus the little child uses his eyes delighted to discover new world to spot all the details that adults miss. The ingenious team develops a plan and plans all the possibilities for the events. The speaker-in-law prepares the minds and circumstances that will make the escape possible, including befriending both prisoners and guards. The technician prepares traps that will be triggered to block one exit and open another. Painters do paintings and works to earn money that allows them to buy a car discreetly and park it in front of the prison. Scammers know how to coax the guards just as long as it takes to undo a screw here or there, and can even provide them with their drugs (to keep them going) because it's a difficult job. And when the time comes, the muscleman, the one who has superhuman strength thanks to his adrenaline control, can break down the doors, walls and obstacles that separate him from freedom.
This is not science fiction, this is what happened. Those who imprison people like Julian Assange want his weakness to be better used. They want to convince themselves of the non-existence of the power of what they have in front of them, they want to be the strongest. But what the unjust do has never succeeded in rewriting history.
Power
To put an end to the Milligan case, apart from its "abnormality", it is not inappropriate to question the exact cause of the judicial harassment of which he was a victim. Studying the other cases to which Julian Assange belongs can be instructive. Billy Milligan was a victim of a real "cabal" that has been very well described, where politicians, opponents in politics but strangely united on this theme, i. e. under the orders of a secret power, put pressure on judges and journalists, creating a fictional narrative to which the authorities adhered without critical thinking, instilling fear in the general public that Milligan would be released, while he was perfectly "cured" (with a unified personality), except precisely when he was under such pressure, used to generate the crises that kept him in prison, including a chemical prison made up of "debilitating drug treatments" (see Craig Murray). All this was planned, even prison residents were bribed to set traps for him. I mean, there was a real evil intelligence at work.
But why this persistence? It so happens that Billy Milligan had wisdom, intelligence and ethics of rare perfection. He knew his power of persuasion to get crowds in his revolutions. He helped to launch a TV series that was both funny and socially relevant, hoping that this model would spread. Moreover, he had with him a conciliabulum capable of acting with a power that could largely compete with any secret service, including by means of the ability to obtain sensitive information without anyone ever knowing how. In short, he was a danger to things that had to remain hidden. The story is simple.
Duty
What are we waiting for to extend and continue the work initiated by Julian Assange? In his book he reveals the low-tech techniques that have allowed him to access sensitive documents without leaving any trace. Any computer scientist will find this easy to do, and interesting to perfect. This work must become more widespread.
When he dies, what will he leave behind? It is understood that the will of the government is that there is nothing left, just as Billy Milligan is no longer known to anyone (and the rights to his biography were bought back, by Leonardo Di Caprio, to leave the project in a box, although films very loosely inspired by reality were released). But the days when we could banish personalities from history are over, times have changed, today we have the Internet.
We hear here and there that the purpose of the manoeuvre, for the government, is to "dissuade whistleblowers", but I think that being afraid is entirely part of the strategy of our opponent, the people's opponent, that is "power". Many legal obstacles are put up to silence them, but in doing so, the power loses all legitimacy.
Far from scaring whistleblowers, they now have every reason to act in a much more organized way. [As such, I recommend the practice of abandoning USB keys in public places, it is the best possible security].
Even if he were to die today, the largely flagrant injustice of which he is the victim, which is spectacular, and of which we should not be surprised, is already a clue that makes it possible to go straight to the proof we are looking for, of a conspiracy of the power, its reasons for acting, its methods, and the people involved in this criminal association.
"At this point, it was not clear why we were witnessing such a farce. The US government dictated its instructions to Lewis, who relayed them to Baraitser, who transformed them into a legal decision."
The fact that injustice is so blatantly exercised, I personally blame it on simple habit. And the fact that she denounces herself so obviously has never prevented her from practicing. It is even a daily practice, after a crime, a blunder, or the fall of a pawn, to claim justice by using it to create even more illegal laws. That's why they think they're above the law.
Here we saw CIA agents arrive during the trial, taking Judge Vanessa Baraitser as an aside, before she issued an appalling verdict, without the slightest scruples, and in plain sight.
It is certain that the crimes of which Julian Assange is accused are nothing at all in relation to what he denounced, and what remains to be denounced. Leaked information on "illegal war crimes" is known, and even the false motives for these wars are admitted. Several high-ranking war criminals are facing trials for crimes against humanity. To this are added other even more "profound" reasons, which are hidden because they are connected to many other cases.
As far as I can tell, if you're interested in hearing it and investigating it, the plan is to put in place a "new world order" (by recasting the rules of capitalism to make it a kind of "militarized banking power", and cyber-alienated), which itself is motivated by the need to unify the world in order to open negotiations with well-identified aliens, in order to access promises that we, the poor initiated, know in advance that they are only traps. But [even if this is too incredible] whatever the "deep reason", if it is not simply power for its own sake, it should be noted with vigour that everything that happens is part of a strategy.
Yes, the world must unite, it is an evolving necessity, but this unification will not be artificial if it is the product of the exercise of all individual freedoms.
And that is precisely the solution for Julian Assange, that people can act together, "as one man". And yes, it is a good thing to want to reform the system, only while people realize that, according to the usual practice of power, a similar but grossly overused idea of these noble objectives is inserted. And when we least expect it, when minds are still uncertain, and before they freeze in new convictions, it is at this moment that the power likes to strike.
So it is the same with the criminalization of whistleblowers, it is a question of short-circuiting one of the new popular powers that is the right to inform that was born with the Internet.
Understanding this is crucial to identifying the "deep reasons" that motivate what is clearly a war strategy at work, the most basic of which is to overuse reality until people are confronted with a fait accompli. In this case, to create a jurisprudence to claim a new "normality". And that is where our defence can come in, on all the points that have been left pending, as Inspector Columbo would do.
Defense
He talked about whistleblowers and publishers labelled as enemies of the people, then he talked about the theft of his children's DNA and the espionage he was subjected to in his meetings with his psychologist. I'm not saying Julian was wrong on these points, but he wasn't able to formulate them correctly
"This superpower has had 10 years to prepare for this case. I don't remember anything. I have no access to any of my written work. It is very difficult to do anything with such limited resources against a superpower determined to[inaudible] They have an unfair advantage over documents. They[know] my inner life through my psychologist. They steal my children's DNA. What is happening here is not fair." ( source)
Without free will, diminished, it is not legitimate to bring in someone who is unable to defend himself. It is objectively unfair to take advantage of its weakness, and downright sadistic to implement it in order to take advantage of it afterwards. It is therefore legitimate for its defence to revert to public opinion.
This is what a power faced with the view that history has of it risks. And there is no point in waiting, because this historical perspective is only the sum of reflections and analyses, and in the age of the Internet, this can go very quickly. And you, reader of this, what would you have said if you had been in his place? That is a real question.
[Great inspiration] To begin my argument, I remind the court that today, convicts are no longer afraid of the weight of guilt and shamelessly continue to appear on TV or work as politicians or in high-ranking positions. Better than that, when a judgment is made, it is easy for journalistic peoples to qualify this judgment as an injustice, with much greater reliability than any other. It is therefore a common thing to question what a theatricalization in period costume, which you call "justice", can no longer sustain.
It is a good thing that this is so, because the law should never have any value or respectability other than the reason and logic on which it is based. The executors themselves should be instructed to exercise their right to refuse unlawful orders.
You seem to think that authority acquired through force and violence can rival that acquired through dedication and self-sacrifice. But history will show you, and has already shown, that this is not the case.
What we should be suing here is the reason and logic behind the indictment. It is the accusation that is at issue here, it is the culprit, and it is easy to prove it. And obviously you are putting dictatorial pressure on the prosecution so that, precisely, it cannot be questioned, which undermines all the means of defence.
Until this reason is clear, the question is: what is this court the defender of?
The fundamental question, Madam, is how much longer it will take for states, not content to issue new laws that are in the interest of the few, to stop violating themselves the last valid laws inherited from our noble predecessors?
Is the charge of "conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to publish Iraq War Logs, Afghanistan War Logs and Department of State cables" sufficient? If the act of conspiracy is a crime, it is because of the purposes defined by the conspiracy. But what are they? There is none, none other than to reveal facts to the public that the public needs to know. On the other hand, if there is a conspiracy, what about the CIA's kidnapping attempts, the confiscation of its personal data, the illegal espionage of its exchanges with its doctors, and the taking of DNA from its children? What is the purpose of these manoeuvres? Certainly not the search for the truth. And what about the presence of the CIA, which openly dictates its instructions to the prosecutor, who relays them to the judge, behind which they sit in the shadows?
Apart from the appalling term "conspiracy", how has it been a crime to broadcast cables? The accuser reserves the right to answer this question once he is extradited, but we know in advance that it is confusing and uncertain. This is a condition that makes extradition legally impossible, as formally stipulated by law. He is accused of almost causing human casualties, which was not the case. Is that a sufficient reason to have "almost committed a crime" (in the second degree of consequences)? What new anti-social law does not cause greater misery and more deaths?
Do we blame him for having been able to compete with a power that has only a vague idea of how these technologies work, and that is afraid of that?
Once the reason for the accusation has been studied, the logic on which it is based must be studied. What wants to be done? And what is feared that it will be reproduced? It is nothing more than denouncing crimes precisely to bring reprehensible activities before the courts. Of course, for a criminal it is reprehensible that someone should threaten to expose him. But the most reprehensible is the crime itself. A crime cannot be punished by a larger crime. Is it not the way in which arguments and counter-arguments are subweighed that we can talk about justice?
Without a valid charge, and without consideration for the evidence provided or even for the simple legislation in force, it appears that the correct verdict is that of dismissal and immediate release.
The liberation of the Bastille
In case anyone still had doubts about what really happened in the courtroom yesterday, Lewis stood up and suggested that the defense should not be allowed to waste the court's time with many arguments. All arguments at the substantive hearing had to be presented in advance and in writing and that a "guillotine" (its exact words) had to be applied to cut short the arguments and witnesses in court, perhaps after five hours for the defence.
What Julian Assange mumbled almost inaudibly, some words being undeciphered, in the mind of someone subjected to a chemical prison, were [certainly] points that he had memorized in advance for fear of forgetting them. When you are subjected to drug torture, it takes a real effort, painful and difficult, to remember them, and to plan to have to remember them. These points highlighted are a synthesis intended to be transmitted to the outside world, to the public, as a message, the only one it can transmit, and which we must analyse and analyse, to be kind enough to ask ourselves questions and to do research work.
Thus, even tiny, these words could be as many headlines:
- Alerting and publishing companies labeled as enemies of the people
- The theft of her children's DNA
- The spying he was subjected to during his meetings with his psychologist
The first point could lead to many analyses. What is the place of this intention in the current process, within the strategy being pursued? Is it not obvious that what we are talking about is dictatorship? Are there not many sufficient examples of just men being imprisoned or killed? And isn't the fundamental question that of a real war, called an information war, which is played on ideologies, and for which real armies are being set up?
The second point is terrifying. What does the CIA have to do with the DNA of its children? What are they looking for? Did they also condemn them in advance not to follow their father's path when he died before the eyes of history?
The third point is perfectly logical with the others, we are talking about dictatorship and a supervisory society. Are there no longer any need for ethical laws on defence secrecy and professional secrecy? What is the origin of this law, if not the exercise of authentic freedom? Who could we trust if we no longer even have the right to express our ideas to anyone, without being recorded and catalogued? Here the theme is similar to that of freedom of expression.
Surprisingly, Prosecutor Lewis referred to the "guillotine" (made in France, we are proud of it!), which was to apply to "all the substantive arguments". That is, exactly and precisely, like a razor, where we question what is most fundamental about what we are doing, namely studying together the reasons and the logic at work. It is the duty of anyone to be interested in what is happening, and to understand, intellectually, how things are articulated. And in any dictatorship, very precisely and very precisely, that is exactly what is "cut short", without giving the defense any chance to express a blatant injustice. That's how despots and torturers do it.
And precisely, and precisely, it is the fact that the prisoners, once overwhelmed by a "justice" in which they had faith, deprived of any means of defence, plunged into a prison hell that even the jailers found justified, and in which they took pleasure in dehumanizing their powerless victims, has become the symbol of liberation and revolution. This infamous and intolerable prison, the place of all injustices, had become the symbol of a dictatorship that did not hide itself, so ignorant was it of being one.
The prison environment is a theatre of state violations. It is the place where there is no more justice, and therefore no way out, or never without consequences. Isn't it said that we evaluate a civilization by the way it treats its prisoners? Only an authentic search for justice can denounce what these prisons are the symbols of, a civilization that has little consideration for the things of reason and logic. A civilization made up of many other prisons, mental, linked to conditioning, blackmail, ignorance, and receptivity to what are nothing but crude lies.
It is the dictatorship that is taking hold, which must be stopped.
Just like Billy Milligan, who has advanced the law in many areas, the only worthwhile escape is through the front door, freeing this world from the mental prisons that are leading to its downfall.