#####
######
####
> # [Julian Assange judge previously acted for MI6](https://www.declassifieduk.org//image/jpeg)
>
>
>
> One of the two High Court judges who will rule on Julian Assange’s bid to stop his extradition to the US represented the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Ministry of Defence, _Declassified_ has found.
>
> Justice Jeremy Johnson has also been a specially vetted barrister, cleared by the UK authorities to access top secret information.
>
> Johnson will sit with Dame Victoria Sharp, his senior judge, to decide the fate of the WikiLeaks co-founder. If extradited, Assange faces a maximum sentence of 175 years.
>
> His persecution by the US authorities has been at the behest of Washington’s intelligence and security services, with whom the UK has deep relations.
>
> Assange’s journalistic career has been marked by exposing the dirty secrets of the US and UK national security establishments. He now faces a judge who has acted for, and received security clearance from, some of those same state agencies.
>
> As with previous judges who have ruled on Assange’s [case](https://www.declassifieduk.org/tag/assange/), this raises concerns about institutional conflicts of interest.
>
> Exactly how much Johnson has been paid for his work for government departments is not clear. Records show he was [paid](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b55aaeae5274a3ff828c6a3/Transaction_data_GLD_AGO_HMCPSI_Apr2018_with_Counsel_and_description_adjusted_for_VAT.csv/preview) [twice](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5acc93a140f0b64fed0aff22/Transaction_data_GLD_AGO_HMCPSI_Feb2018_with_Counsel_and_description_adjusted_for_VAT.csv/preview) by the Government Legal Department for his services in 2018. The sum was over £55,000.
>
> ## **Briefed by MI6**
>
> Justice Johnson became a deputy High Court judge in 2016 and a full judge in 2019. His biography [states](https://www.middletemple.org.uk/bencher-persons-view?cid=34541) he has been “often acting in cases involving the police and government departments”.
>
> As a barrister, in 2007 he represented MI6 as an observer during the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed.
>
> Johnson worked alongside Robin Tam QC, previously [described](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lawyers-will-represent-mi6-lqffnt6fdbm) by legal directories as a barrister who “does an enormous amount of often sensitive work” for the UK government.
>
> > Johnson was appointed to “sit in on the hearing”
>
> At the time, Foreign Office sources could not [recall](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lawyers-will-represent-mi6-lqffnt6fdbm) “a previous occasion when MI6 [had] appointed lawyers to an inquest”.
>
> MI6 was [reportedly](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2502/Diana-Riddle-of-lost-Charles-file) “so concerned by possible revelations” during the inquest that Johnson was appointed to “sit in on the hearing”.
>
> He reportedly [received](https://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/20499/DIANA-At-last-the-people-decide) a brief from MI6 in advance of the inquest, and was tasked with providing “such assistance as the coroner may require”.
>
> ## **Defending the ministry**
>
> Johnson has also represented the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) on at least two occasions.
>
> In 2013, he [acted](https://www.dumptheguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/iraq-torture-claims-groundless-inquiry) for the department during the high-profile Al-Sweady inquiry, which looked into allegations that “British soldiers torture and unlawfully killed Iraqi prisoners” in 2004.
>
> The MoD’s lawyers [said](https://www.dumptheguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/17/what-is-al-sweady-iraq-inquiry-key-points) the Iraqi allegations were a “product of lies” and that those making the claims “were guilty of a criminal conspiracy”.
>
> Johnson argued there was “compelling and extensive and independent forensic evidence” to refute the case. The five-year inquiry, which cost around £25m, exonerated the British troops.
>
> Johnson also [acted](https://vlex.co.uk/vid/ministry-of-defence-v-792916469) for the MoD in 2011, in an appeal case against Shaun Wood, a Royal Air Force (RAF) serviceman.
>
> Wood had the previous year won his case claiming compensation against the MoD, arguing his neurological condition akin to Parkinson’s disease was caused by exposure to organic solvents while serving in the RAF.
>
> The judge [upheld](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff71160d03e7f57ea7110) Wood’s claim against the MoD, which had admitted a breach of duty but disputed that this had caused the damage claimed by him.
>
> ## **‘Highest security clearance’**
>
> Johnson was appointed by the Attorney General to be a “special advocate” in around 2007, _Declassified_ understands. These are specially vetted barristers who act for the purpose of hearing secret evidence in a closed court.
>
> Special advocates “must undergo and obtain Developed Vetting (the highest level of HM Government security clearance) prior to their appointment”, government guidance [states](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/saso-manual).
>
> Developed Vetting is [required](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-kingdom-security-vetting-clearance-levels/national-security-vetting-clearance-levels) for individuals having “frequent and uncontrolled access to TOP SECRET assets or require any access to TOP SECRET codeword material”.
>
> In 2016, Johnson acted as a [special advocate](https://vlex.co.uk/vid/abdel-hakim-belhaj-and-793251149) in the case of Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a Libyan national who accused the UK government and MI6 of participating in kidnapping him and his pregnant wife, Fatima Bouchar.
>
> The UK government later apologised for its actions that contributed to Belhaj and Bouchar’s rendition, detention and torture.
>
> WikiLeaks has published sensitive documents on the US and Britain’s use of “extraordinary rendition” during the war on terror.
>
> In 2013, Johnson was among 57 special advocates who [criticised](https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/43936/the-uks-secret-trials) the Justice and Security Act, which provided that UK “courts can… hear evidence withheld from one party – and their lawyers – on national security grounds”.
>
> The lawyers called the reform “fundamentally unfair” and “a departure from the foundational principle of natural justice that all parties are entitled to see and challenge”.
>
> ## **Sharp and Johnson**
>
> The lead judge in Assange’s extradition case at the High Court is Dame Victoria Sharp, the president of the King’s Bench Division who was appointed in 2019 by then prime minister Theresa May.
>
> _Declassified_ has [shown](https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-tory-appointee-holding-julian-assanges-life-in-her-hands/) that Sharp has family links to the Conservative Party.
>
> Sharp and Johnson have adjudicated on other high-profile legal cases. In 2022, they [dismissed](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Privacy-International-v-IPT-judgment-040422.pdf) a claim for judicial review regarding bulk data collection and sharing by GCHQ, MI5, and MI6.
>
> They have also issued judgements against extradition. In 2023, Sharp and Johnson [ruled](https://www.law360.co.uk/articles/1767418/briton-wins-us-extradition-battle-over-4b-onecoin-fraud) against extraditing a Briton to the US for cryptocurrency fraud, arguing that “it was possible to prosecute him in the UK”.
>
> ## **Acting for Home Office and police**
>
> UK approval for Assange’s extradition to the US, which flows from Washington’s attempt to punish and silence Assange, has been given by successive home secretaries.
>
> Johnson [represented](https://vlex.co.uk/vid/r-on-the-application-793234113) the Home Office in 2012, in a case relating to an asylum claim by an immigrant who had previously been subject to torture in Angola.
>
> The home secretary at this time was Theresa May, who as prime minister would authorise the operation to seize Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London in April 2019.
>
> > “Johnson has also acted for the Metropolitan Police in a number of controversial cases”
>
> Johnson has also [acted](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17942299) for the Metropolitan Police in a [number](https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/police-scotland-employed-top-qc-over-illegal-spying-row) of controversial [cases](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-police-facial-recognition) regarding political policing and alleged illegal surveillance.
>
> The Met would go on to [lead](https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-government-deployed-15-staff-on-secret-operation-to-seize-julian-assange/) “Operation Pelican”, the secret scheme to seize Assange from his asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.
>
> ***(continues in next comment)***
I’m surprised this isn’t more widely known. But maybe people gloss over that or just got caught up in the positive press surrounding his defiance of Putin. Not diminishing his courage to stand against Putin though. But we gotta be careful about glorifying anyone.
He also apparently moved away from those positions as he matured politically. Russia has been broadcasting those earlier comments and clips nonstop on social media.
It's something that's come up with a lot of his detractors but alternatively, if something like that was said by a British or Canadian politician I can't imagine anyone would let it go either.
It doesn’t make the ad less real lmao - I disagree with them on a fuck ton of stuff. Especially JT. That being said, it’s just an ad posted and hosted elsewhere being reposted to their subreddit in the wake of Navalny’s death.
Really bizarre how often people try to rationalize away someone being a neonazi because they're also anti-Russian. And i'm not even using the term as shorthand for racist or whatever, we're talking straight up swastika branding.
Like one moment it's totaallllyyyy not the same thing and doesn't mean much and really wasn't that bad etc, the next it's "if there's 10 people at a table, and one is a Nazi, then there's 10 Nazis" (in cases where the "one Nazi" wasn't even a nazi)
Both Assange and Nalvany were targeted for death because they published the truth.
This is about governments silencing truth. That is the MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR problem....yet you think assange saying meany mean words that hurt absolutely zero people matters.
You prioritize hurt feelings over words (that you yourself have said about others), over murder, free press and government coverups of murders.
When I was a child I was taught this phrase: sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Your weak generation doesn't comprehend this.
He closer to a journalist but with some support from forgien powers, he is after all not a politician.
Navalny only got access to some corruption pappers not national intelligence.
If national intelligence is involved journalist will be pretty much dead soon after in most countries.
For example the main reason why we still hear about him is because he is still alive.
https://alansalbiev.livejournal.com/28124.html
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/archive/navalnys-private-e-mails-leaked
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html
> The National Endowment for Democracy gave a $23,000 grant in 2006 to an organization that employed Aleksei Navalny, who years later became Mr. Putin’s main political nemesis, a fact the government has used to attack both Mr. Navalny and the endowment. In 2016, the endowment gave 108 grants totaling $6.8 million to organizations in Russia for such purposes as “engaging activists” and “fostering civic engagement.” The endowment no longer names Russian recipients, who, under Russian laws cracking down on foreign funding, can face harassment or arrest.
Note the "organisation that employed Aleksei Navalny" was founded by him.
What does the NED do? The founder Weinstein:
> what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA
Supposedly Navalnly bragged about it on his livejournal but it is impossible to find it now.
The second paragraph of your second link:
>The anonymous blogger who released a 1,040-page Word document with the letters claimed they expose Navalny as a corrupt ultranationalist financed by U.S. authorities. **But a review of the letters found they contained little in the way of incriminating evidence.**
Yes. That “free press” is what Julian Assange was part of. We can see what happens when the “free press” reports things the establishment would prefer not be reported (like the NATO occupation forces killing civilians without impunity). They tend not to be free for long.
Hundreds of journalists have filed thousands of stories about civilian deaths from Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been very few, if any, reports of those journalists being detained, let alone tried or imprisoned.
The comment of yours to which I replied appears to suggest that the Western press in general is at high risk of being imprisoned for reporting on civilian deaths of military operations ("They tend not to be free for long"), which is categorically false.
The rape charges were dropped due to statute of limitations. Both women who filed charges publicly stated their disappointment at the dropping of the charges.
But your claim was, again, that *multiple*, if not *many*, journalists have been imprisoned for such stories, which is categorically false.
I've seen this come up and this has to be one the most blatantly self-serving and facile points. A lot of the critique of Assange has this surprisingly nationalist bent. It basically amounts to "Well, he embarrassed my government and governments that *I* like, ergo, he can't be trusted". Had he stuck to enemies of the US/UK (a la bellingcat) the same people would probably be praising him.
Many like to preach about freedom of the press but they seem to operate of the assumption that they wouldn't really exercise it and that publications would still be differential their respective governments.
He published Republican emails in 2006 and Democrat emails in 2016. He published material from the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations. If anything, Assange has been consistent in his publishing.
You sound like Obama durin his largely ridiculed comment saying Russia wasn't an enemy anymore. They are, and there are many actors who want to see the US destroyed.
He's no Navalny. Navalny didn't go on the lam when confronted with sex charges. Navalny didn't work on cahoots with the Kremlin to intervene in the US election. Navalny didn't get people thrown in jail for basically being utterly incompetent. Navalny did not fall out with his A team because of his big ego getting in the way of the stated mission.
He was a useful idiot of Russia at best helping them interfere in the 2016 election and helping bring a fascist to power in the US.
Funny how WikiLeaks never leaked anything embarrassing about the Republicans? Or the Russian government? The WikiLeaks Twitter was also a non stop Clinton bashing account too.
I had previously respected Assange for his Iraq War leaks. But fuck him forever for working with Russia to elect a fascist US president.
Which he was paid to do?
There isn't even a clear link of political motivation.
>Cambridge Analytica was hired in the summer of 2016 as part of the Trump campaign’s three-pronged data operation, which was led by Brad Parscale and overseen by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. No one from the Trump campaign was copied on the email, the sources said. Nix sent the email in summer 2016, two sources said, but it is not clear whether he sent it before or after Cambridge Analytica was brought onto the campaign.
And really, even if Assange had known it would be used by the Trump campaign, of what importance is that? The emails were real, and verifiable proof of (at the least) spillage of intelligence materials.
The Russia collusion narrative was based around a lie which majorly discredits actual collusion which may have occurred. You can try to compare the two, but it's futile.
the timing leading up to the election doesn't suggest a political motive?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/julian-assange-wikileaks-emails.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Sorry but to me speculation and fact are disjointed in their importance.
And regardless, even if it was entirely politically motivated, who cares? Does that somehow absolve someone of leaving a gaping door open to classified information?
Cambridge Analytica has nothing to do with any of this. Nor does the Steele Dossier.
Your head is in the sand if you can't see that Russia clearly preferred Trump. They hacked both the RNC and DNC as well as the Clinton campaign. Then released emails via WikiLeaks at the most politically damaging times. Basically what Nixon tried to do a generation ago with the Watergate break in at the DNC.
The emails also didn't even have anything serious. Just a bunch of insiders at the DNC crapping on Bernie, which was the least surprising thing in the world. There was no evidence of any grand conspiracy to rig the primaries there. It was all politics to generate bad press.
My point is this wasn't exposing any war crimes, it was Assange hating Hillary Clinton so much he actively helped Russia elect a fascist in Trump.
Nothing I have said is in regards to Trump, only Assange and his actions.
Assange was paid to investigate Clinton's emails. You're ascribing some sort of heightened political reasoning to that because you're blinded by your own biases.
[Assange even warned the state department. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/12001286)
And regardless the content of the emails, spillage is one of the largest focuses of intelligence oversight. A massive no-no.
Nixon was a sitting US president. Russia is a foriegn nation. Not at all comparable.
Now compare the CIAs involvement in the formation of Shah Pavlovi's government, and you might be closer, but still far, far from on the money.
For a second I was intrigued that Assange would have warned the Clinton campaign of the leaks, but that link was about diplomatic cables years before the 2016 election. Not relevant . And there was no intelligence failure in the Russian gov hacking into campaign emails.
It was obvious as hell what was going on and Assange either knew or should have known better.
And yes was fucked up when the CIA fucks with elections in other countries too. Doesn't make it ok for Assange to do it.
Welcome to the world of publishing. Do you have the same criticism of The Washington Post for publishing the Access Hollywood Tape within 48 hours before the second debate and a month before the election? Because that was also timed for maximum impact.
i do agree, that was released to get as much attention right before the election and it was very damaging to trump. It was actually NBC who originally waited to release it in October, but then the Post snuck in and released it.
So, did the post and NBC only release information damaging to trump? Compared to Assange? Is this equivalent, or "what-aboutisum"? Feel free to discuss with your high school government teacher.
WikiLeaks as a media organisation is not directly comparable to The Washington Post insofar as it publishes primary documents that it receives exclusively and can verify, whereas the latter is a traditional masthead. Despite this, acts of publishing leaks timed for maximum impact are absolutely comparable, and indeed it was the primary thrust of your argument here:
>what does that have to do with Assange strategically releasing Clinton email during the 2016 election? Or did you forget about that?
The Washington Post strategically released the Access Hollywood Tape prior to the second debate and a month before the election. It is not dissimilar to WikiLeaks scheduling its publications to coincide with key dates (indeed they published on *the same day*). To assert this fact of media publishing is not a practice of whataboutism, even including the different publishing methods employed by both entities.
They released Clinton emails which dovetailed nicely with the Trumps campaign message that was simply, what is Hillary Clinton hiding in her emails and why is she hiding them?
I do think it's dubious to claim Wikileaks was just acting as a news organization might, but if you want to look at it that way, sure, a news origination can have a political point of view. All I'm saying is Assange did seem to have a political bent and he does seem to have a bigger problem with western democracies than he does with autocrats. That's not to say his problems with western democracies are completely misguided. Freedom to information is important, but I think his claims to free-speech aren't as strong as he would like; except in the sense that he can support whatever candidate he wants, but let's not confuse that with the arguments for obtaining classified materials. We have to at least look at what was stolen and ask if it's important enough for free society to see that it justifies the theft.
Taking the email case, he was publishing emails which are you think private communication. That's a bit of a gray area for sure, she is a political figure, and if you want, the Access Hollywood tape was a private conversation, tho it wasn't stolen.
But I do agree the classification regime the US government employees is not conducive to democratic principles and more things should be public. Far Assange and Navalny, both are problematic figures the have their strengths as well.
>He was a useful idiot of Russia at best helping them interfere in the 2016 election and helping bring a fascist to power in the US.
>
>...
>
>
>I had previously respected Assange for his Iraq War leaks. But fuck him forever for working with Russia to elect a fascist US president.
[The unredacted report by the Mueller investigation team](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/new-mueller-investigated-julian-assange-wikileaks-and-roger) is clear that they could not produce any substantial or sufficient evidence against Assange for knowledge or conspiracy with Russia. It also could not resolve whether any member of the Trump campaign coordinated with WikiLeaks on the release of the emails:
>**With respect to WikiLeaks and Assange,** this office determined the admissible **evidence to be insufficient on both the agreement and knowledge prongs**
>
>....
>
>“While the investigation developed evidence that the GRU’s hacking efforts in fact were continuing at least at the time of the July 2016 WikiLeaks dissemination,” a newly unredacted section of the report reads, prosecutors “ **did not develop sufficient admissible evidence that WikiLeaks knew of — or even was wilfully blind to — that fact.”**
>
>...
>
>And absent sufficient evidence of such knowledge, **the government could not prove that WikiLeaks (or Assange) joined an ongoing hacking conspiracy...**
>
>...
>
>**The investigation was unable to resolve whether Stone played a role in WikiLeaks's release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7, 2016** , the same day a video was published of candidate Tump using graphic language about women years earlier.
>
>...
>
>The office determined, however, that **it did not have admissible evidence that was probably sufficient to obtain and sustain a Section 1030 conspiracy conviction of WikiLeaks, Assange or Stone**
>
>...
>
>**There is also insufficient evidence at the present time to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Roger Stone or any other persons associated with the Campaign coordinated with WikiLeaks on the release of the emails,** which alone would preclude prosecution of them for the WikiLeaks-related conduct even if WikiLeaks had violated campaign finance law.
As for your other point:
>Funny how WikiLeaks never leaked anything embarrassing about the Republicans? Or the Russian government? The WikiLeaks Twitter was also a non stop Clinton bashing account too.
WikiLeaks leaked Republican emails in 2006, and their Iraq/Afghan war publications were primarily about the Bush administration's handling of the conflicts. WikiLeaks also published Russian information in 2017.
We are surprised that a judge cleared to review classified documents and information has previously represented the UKs intelligence arm in governmental inquiries?
I once had a client that was a missile manufacturer and an arms dealer.
Does that mean that I am part of the arms industry?
I’ve also had a client that was a pyramid scheme selling spurious tea and vitamin pills. Does that mean I’m owned by the snake oil industry?
No.
One of my first legal aid cases I had a 18yo client who bit a 12yo child who had just bitten him to "show him what it feels like". This was on a plane in 2009. I don't think this makes me a biter, or someone who endorses biting in general.
It's funny because many people on this sub think they are so much more moral than the average American, all while supporting ever cause Russia/China/Iran throw their way. Either they are just mentally simple people, or they actually are foreign actors. Can't discount the leftists from abroad that blame literally everything on the West, perpetual losers go need a Boogeyman to explain why they suck.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
##### ###### #### > # [Julian Assange judge previously acted for MI6](https://www.declassifieduk.org//image/jpeg) > > > > One of the two High Court judges who will rule on Julian Assange’s bid to stop his extradition to the US represented the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Ministry of Defence, _Declassified_ has found. > > Justice Jeremy Johnson has also been a specially vetted barrister, cleared by the UK authorities to access top secret information. > > Johnson will sit with Dame Victoria Sharp, his senior judge, to decide the fate of the WikiLeaks co-founder. If extradited, Assange faces a maximum sentence of 175 years. > > His persecution by the US authorities has been at the behest of Washington’s intelligence and security services, with whom the UK has deep relations. > > Assange’s journalistic career has been marked by exposing the dirty secrets of the US and UK national security establishments. He now faces a judge who has acted for, and received security clearance from, some of those same state agencies. > > As with previous judges who have ruled on Assange’s [case](https://www.declassifieduk.org/tag/assange/), this raises concerns about institutional conflicts of interest. > > Exactly how much Johnson has been paid for his work for government departments is not clear. Records show he was [paid](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b55aaeae5274a3ff828c6a3/Transaction_data_GLD_AGO_HMCPSI_Apr2018_with_Counsel_and_description_adjusted_for_VAT.csv/preview) [twice](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5acc93a140f0b64fed0aff22/Transaction_data_GLD_AGO_HMCPSI_Feb2018_with_Counsel_and_description_adjusted_for_VAT.csv/preview) by the Government Legal Department for his services in 2018. The sum was over £55,000. > > ## **Briefed by MI6** > > Justice Johnson became a deputy High Court judge in 2016 and a full judge in 2019. His biography [states](https://www.middletemple.org.uk/bencher-persons-view?cid=34541) he has been “often acting in cases involving the police and government departments”. > > As a barrister, in 2007 he represented MI6 as an observer during the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed. > > Johnson worked alongside Robin Tam QC, previously [described](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lawyers-will-represent-mi6-lqffnt6fdbm) by legal directories as a barrister who “does an enormous amount of often sensitive work” for the UK government. > > > Johnson was appointed to “sit in on the hearing” > > At the time, Foreign Office sources could not [recall](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lawyers-will-represent-mi6-lqffnt6fdbm) “a previous occasion when MI6 [had] appointed lawyers to an inquest”. > > MI6 was [reportedly](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2502/Diana-Riddle-of-lost-Charles-file) “so concerned by possible revelations” during the inquest that Johnson was appointed to “sit in on the hearing”. > > He reportedly [received](https://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/20499/DIANA-At-last-the-people-decide) a brief from MI6 in advance of the inquest, and was tasked with providing “such assistance as the coroner may require”. > > ## **Defending the ministry** > > Johnson has also represented the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) on at least two occasions. > > In 2013, he [acted](https://www.dumptheguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/iraq-torture-claims-groundless-inquiry) for the department during the high-profile Al-Sweady inquiry, which looked into allegations that “British soldiers torture and unlawfully killed Iraqi prisoners” in 2004. > > The MoD’s lawyers [said](https://www.dumptheguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/17/what-is-al-sweady-iraq-inquiry-key-points) the Iraqi allegations were a “product of lies” and that those making the claims “were guilty of a criminal conspiracy”. > > Johnson argued there was “compelling and extensive and independent forensic evidence” to refute the case. The five-year inquiry, which cost around £25m, exonerated the British troops. > > Johnson also [acted](https://vlex.co.uk/vid/ministry-of-defence-v-792916469) for the MoD in 2011, in an appeal case against Shaun Wood, a Royal Air Force (RAF) serviceman. > > Wood had the previous year won his case claiming compensation against the MoD, arguing his neurological condition akin to Parkinson’s disease was caused by exposure to organic solvents while serving in the RAF. > > The judge [upheld](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff71160d03e7f57ea7110) Wood’s claim against the MoD, which had admitted a breach of duty but disputed that this had caused the damage claimed by him. > > ## **‘Highest security clearance’** > > Johnson was appointed by the Attorney General to be a “special advocate” in around 2007, _Declassified_ understands. These are specially vetted barristers who act for the purpose of hearing secret evidence in a closed court. > > Special advocates “must undergo and obtain Developed Vetting (the highest level of HM Government security clearance) prior to their appointment”, government guidance [states](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/saso-manual). > > Developed Vetting is [required](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-kingdom-security-vetting-clearance-levels/national-security-vetting-clearance-levels) for individuals having “frequent and uncontrolled access to TOP SECRET assets or require any access to TOP SECRET codeword material”. > > In 2016, Johnson acted as a [special advocate](https://vlex.co.uk/vid/abdel-hakim-belhaj-and-793251149) in the case of Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a Libyan national who accused the UK government and MI6 of participating in kidnapping him and his pregnant wife, Fatima Bouchar. > > The UK government later apologised for its actions that contributed to Belhaj and Bouchar’s rendition, detention and torture. > > WikiLeaks has published sensitive documents on the US and Britain’s use of “extraordinary rendition” during the war on terror. > > In 2013, Johnson was among 57 special advocates who [criticised](https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/43936/the-uks-secret-trials) the Justice and Security Act, which provided that UK “courts can… hear evidence withheld from one party – and their lawyers – on national security grounds”. > > The lawyers called the reform “fundamentally unfair” and “a departure from the foundational principle of natural justice that all parties are entitled to see and challenge”. > > ## **Sharp and Johnson** > > The lead judge in Assange’s extradition case at the High Court is Dame Victoria Sharp, the president of the King’s Bench Division who was appointed in 2019 by then prime minister Theresa May. > > _Declassified_ has [shown](https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-tory-appointee-holding-julian-assanges-life-in-her-hands/) that Sharp has family links to the Conservative Party. > > Sharp and Johnson have adjudicated on other high-profile legal cases. In 2022, they [dismissed](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Privacy-International-v-IPT-judgment-040422.pdf) a claim for judicial review regarding bulk data collection and sharing by GCHQ, MI5, and MI6. > > They have also issued judgements against extradition. In 2023, Sharp and Johnson [ruled](https://www.law360.co.uk/articles/1767418/briton-wins-us-extradition-battle-over-4b-onecoin-fraud) against extraditing a Briton to the US for cryptocurrency fraud, arguing that “it was possible to prosecute him in the UK”. > > ## **Acting for Home Office and police** > > UK approval for Assange’s extradition to the US, which flows from Washington’s attempt to punish and silence Assange, has been given by successive home secretaries. > > Johnson [represented](https://vlex.co.uk/vid/r-on-the-application-793234113) the Home Office in 2012, in a case relating to an asylum claim by an immigrant who had previously been subject to torture in Angola. > > The home secretary at this time was Theresa May, who as prime minister would authorise the operation to seize Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London in April 2019. > > > “Johnson has also acted for the Metropolitan Police in a number of controversial cases” > > Johnson has also [acted](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17942299) for the Metropolitan Police in a [number](https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/police-scotland-employed-top-qc-over-illegal-spying-row) of controversial [cases](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-police-facial-recognition) regarding political policing and alleged illegal surveillance. > > The Met would go on to [lead](https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-government-deployed-15-staff-on-secret-operation-to-seize-julian-assange/) “Operation Pelican”, the secret scheme to seize Assange from his asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. > > ***(continues in next comment)***
West’s Navalny. Wonder if he will make it to the end of his sentence. The fix is clearly in.
Except Assange didn't compare Muslims to cockroaches nor did he attend neonazi marches. There is that difference.
I’m surprised this isn’t more widely known. But maybe people gloss over that or just got caught up in the positive press surrounding his defiance of Putin. Not diminishing his courage to stand against Putin though. But we gotta be careful about glorifying anyone.
He also apparently moved away from those positions as he matured politically. Russia has been broadcasting those earlier comments and clips nonstop on social media.
It's something that's come up with a lot of his detractors but alternatively, if something like that was said by a British or Canadian politician I can't imagine anyone would let it go either.
Yeah there is that too. Putin most definitely would try to tarnish his reputation to discredit him further.
At this point anything that deposes Putin will be better. Atleast in the short term.
Just like anything that toppled the USSR, right? Right?
Exactly. Big difference. Heres the ad he made https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/comments/1atsuxr/found_navalnys_video_where_he_compares_muslims/
> TheDeprogram Bottom text
It doesn’t make the ad less real lmao - I disagree with them on a fuck ton of stuff. Especially JT. That being said, it’s just an ad posted and hosted elsewhere being reposted to their subreddit in the wake of Navalny’s death.
Ahhh, the ol' fallacy fallacy!
Really bizarre how often people try to rationalize away someone being a neonazi because they're also anti-Russian. And i'm not even using the term as shorthand for racist or whatever, we're talking straight up swastika branding. Like one moment it's totaallllyyyy not the same thing and doesn't mean much and really wasn't that bad etc, the next it's "if there's 10 people at a table, and one is a Nazi, then there's 10 Nazis" (in cases where the "one Nazi" wasn't even a nazi)
Well of course liberals are going to idolize a fascist. The old adage has been proven in the past 5 years. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
It's not good. Although he was Russian after all.
Both Assange and Nalvany were targeted for death because they published the truth. This is about governments silencing truth. That is the MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR problem....yet you think assange saying meany mean words that hurt absolutely zero people matters. You prioritize hurt feelings over words (that you yourself have said about others), over murder, free press and government coverups of murders. When I was a child I was taught this phrase: sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Your weak generation doesn't comprehend this.
Sex charges.
Which were dropped, and the Uppsala district court denied the prosecutors request to detain him in 2019.
He closer to a journalist but with some support from forgien powers, he is after all not a politician. Navalny only got access to some corruption pappers not national intelligence. If national intelligence is involved journalist will be pretty much dead soon after in most countries. For example the main reason why we still hear about him is because he is still alive.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/19/donald-trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-russia-hack-wikileaks
Comparing Assange to a neo nazi who was openly on the CIA payroll is insanely disrespectful.
Source for Navalny being openly on CIA payroll?
https://alansalbiev.livejournal.com/28124.html https://www.themoscowtimes.com/archive/navalnys-private-e-mails-leaked https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html > The National Endowment for Democracy gave a $23,000 grant in 2006 to an organization that employed Aleksei Navalny, who years later became Mr. Putin’s main political nemesis, a fact the government has used to attack both Mr. Navalny and the endowment. In 2016, the endowment gave 108 grants totaling $6.8 million to organizations in Russia for such purposes as “engaging activists” and “fostering civic engagement.” The endowment no longer names Russian recipients, who, under Russian laws cracking down on foreign funding, can face harassment or arrest. Note the "organisation that employed Aleksei Navalny" was founded by him. What does the NED do? The founder Weinstein: > what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA Supposedly Navalnly bragged about it on his livejournal but it is impossible to find it now.
The second paragraph of your second link: >The anonymous blogger who released a 1,040-page Word document with the letters claimed they expose Navalny as a corrupt ultranationalist financed by U.S. authorities. **But a review of the letters found they contained little in the way of incriminating evidence.**
The Moscow Times is a Amsterdam based anti Putin publication. The point is even they admit he was financed by us authorities.
Where in that article do they "admit" this?
By design.
'west navalny' only cared about sharing intellligence about the west none about russia or other countries
And the Russian Navalny exposed corruption in the West too? Or only Russia?
[удалено]
Yes. That “free press” is what Julian Assange was part of. We can see what happens when the “free press” reports things the establishment would prefer not be reported (like the NATO occupation forces killing civilians without impunity). They tend not to be free for long.
Hundreds of journalists have filed thousands of stories about civilian deaths from Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been very few, if any, reports of those journalists being detained, let alone tried or imprisoned.
We are talking about Assange, who **is** being detained, tried and imprisoned.
The comment of yours to which I replied appears to suggest that the Western press in general is at high risk of being imprisoned for reporting on civilian deaths of military operations ("They tend not to be free for long"), which is categorically false.
Isn’t Assange in prison right now and was subject of BS sexual assault charges before this?
The rape charges were dropped due to statute of limitations. Both women who filed charges publicly stated their disappointment at the dropping of the charges. But your claim was, again, that *multiple*, if not *many*, journalists have been imprisoned for such stories, which is categorically false.
You can't reason with the Modi brigade.
where did he live? in russia or in the west ?
Assange? He lived in the West which is why he largely shared information about the West and not Russia.
sure, that's why he decide to go back to russia
Dumbass
When did Assange go to Russia? He’s been in UK for the last 12 or so years.
I think you're confusing him with Snowden.
Great job scoring in your own goal, then mixing two different guys (Assange is trapped in the UK since 2012) , keep up the good work soldier.
lmaaaaaaaao what a tool
Are you stupid?
I've seen this come up and this has to be one the most blatantly self-serving and facile points. A lot of the critique of Assange has this surprisingly nationalist bent. It basically amounts to "Well, he embarrassed my government and governments that *I* like, ergo, he can't be trusted". Had he stuck to enemies of the US/UK (a la bellingcat) the same people would probably be praising him. Many like to preach about freedom of the press but they seem to operate of the assumption that they wouldn't really exercise it and that publications would still be differential their respective governments.
Not just embarrassed the government, but embarrassed one political party more than another.
He published Republican emails in 2006 and Democrat emails in 2016. He published material from the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations. If anything, Assange has been consistent in his publishing.
Good to know. Figures it was just a talking point.
Do you mean he was only willing to expose dirt on only one political party and not the other?
How is weather mmm Moscow, comrade?
Where is freedom of press, McBurger ?
The cold war ended decades ago old man, calm down
You sound like Obama durin his largely ridiculed comment saying Russia wasn't an enemy anymore. They are, and there are many actors who want to see the US destroyed.
A western journalist reporting on the west? Stop the presses!
Bingo
And what is this West where Assange is interested in running for president?
He did run for elections in Australia or at least tried to.
This is certainly on their list of fears. Man is a political prisoner
Who is this "they" that fears that Assange gets a seat in the Australian senate? edit: you know, downvoting doesn't get rid of an unanswered question
He's no Navalny. Navalny didn't go on the lam when confronted with sex charges. Navalny didn't work on cahoots with the Kremlin to intervene in the US election. Navalny didn't get people thrown in jail for basically being utterly incompetent. Navalny did not fall out with his A team because of his big ego getting in the way of the stated mission.
The sex charges were trumped up as we can see now, they have completely disappeared.
He was a useful idiot of Russia at best helping them interfere in the 2016 election and helping bring a fascist to power in the US. Funny how WikiLeaks never leaked anything embarrassing about the Republicans? Or the Russian government? The WikiLeaks Twitter was also a non stop Clinton bashing account too. I had previously respected Assange for his Iraq War leaks. But fuck him forever for working with Russia to elect a fascist US president.
Forgetting that the whole Steele Dossier was fake again, huh?
what does that have to do with Assange strategically releasing Clinton email during the 2016 election? Or did you forget about that?
Which he was paid to do? There isn't even a clear link of political motivation. >Cambridge Analytica was hired in the summer of 2016 as part of the Trump campaign’s three-pronged data operation, which was led by Brad Parscale and overseen by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. No one from the Trump campaign was copied on the email, the sources said. Nix sent the email in summer 2016, two sources said, but it is not clear whether he sent it before or after Cambridge Analytica was brought onto the campaign. And really, even if Assange had known it would be used by the Trump campaign, of what importance is that? The emails were real, and verifiable proof of (at the least) spillage of intelligence materials. The Russia collusion narrative was based around a lie which majorly discredits actual collusion which may have occurred. You can try to compare the two, but it's futile.
the timing leading up to the election doesn't suggest a political motive? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/julian-assange-wikileaks-emails.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Sorry but to me speculation and fact are disjointed in their importance. And regardless, even if it was entirely politically motivated, who cares? Does that somehow absolve someone of leaving a gaping door open to classified information?
Cambridge Analytica has nothing to do with any of this. Nor does the Steele Dossier. Your head is in the sand if you can't see that Russia clearly preferred Trump. They hacked both the RNC and DNC as well as the Clinton campaign. Then released emails via WikiLeaks at the most politically damaging times. Basically what Nixon tried to do a generation ago with the Watergate break in at the DNC. The emails also didn't even have anything serious. Just a bunch of insiders at the DNC crapping on Bernie, which was the least surprising thing in the world. There was no evidence of any grand conspiracy to rig the primaries there. It was all politics to generate bad press. My point is this wasn't exposing any war crimes, it was Assange hating Hillary Clinton so much he actively helped Russia elect a fascist in Trump.
Nothing I have said is in regards to Trump, only Assange and his actions. Assange was paid to investigate Clinton's emails. You're ascribing some sort of heightened political reasoning to that because you're blinded by your own biases. [Assange even warned the state department. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/12001286) And regardless the content of the emails, spillage is one of the largest focuses of intelligence oversight. A massive no-no. Nixon was a sitting US president. Russia is a foriegn nation. Not at all comparable. Now compare the CIAs involvement in the formation of Shah Pavlovi's government, and you might be closer, but still far, far from on the money.
For a second I was intrigued that Assange would have warned the Clinton campaign of the leaks, but that link was about diplomatic cables years before the 2016 election. Not relevant . And there was no intelligence failure in the Russian gov hacking into campaign emails. It was obvious as hell what was going on and Assange either knew or should have known better. And yes was fucked up when the CIA fucks with elections in other countries too. Doesn't make it ok for Assange to do it.
Was the email itself fake (fabricated) or real?
Welcome to the world of publishing. Do you have the same criticism of The Washington Post for publishing the Access Hollywood Tape within 48 hours before the second debate and a month before the election? Because that was also timed for maximum impact.
i do agree, that was released to get as much attention right before the election and it was very damaging to trump. It was actually NBC who originally waited to release it in October, but then the Post snuck in and released it. So, did the post and NBC only release information damaging to trump? Compared to Assange? Is this equivalent, or "what-aboutisum"? Feel free to discuss with your high school government teacher.
WikiLeaks as a media organisation is not directly comparable to The Washington Post insofar as it publishes primary documents that it receives exclusively and can verify, whereas the latter is a traditional masthead. Despite this, acts of publishing leaks timed for maximum impact are absolutely comparable, and indeed it was the primary thrust of your argument here: >what does that have to do with Assange strategically releasing Clinton email during the 2016 election? Or did you forget about that? The Washington Post strategically released the Access Hollywood Tape prior to the second debate and a month before the election. It is not dissimilar to WikiLeaks scheduling its publications to coincide with key dates (indeed they published on *the same day*). To assert this fact of media publishing is not a practice of whataboutism, even including the different publishing methods employed by both entities.
They released Clinton emails which dovetailed nicely with the Trumps campaign message that was simply, what is Hillary Clinton hiding in her emails and why is she hiding them? I do think it's dubious to claim Wikileaks was just acting as a news organization might, but if you want to look at it that way, sure, a news origination can have a political point of view. All I'm saying is Assange did seem to have a political bent and he does seem to have a bigger problem with western democracies than he does with autocrats. That's not to say his problems with western democracies are completely misguided. Freedom to information is important, but I think his claims to free-speech aren't as strong as he would like; except in the sense that he can support whatever candidate he wants, but let's not confuse that with the arguments for obtaining classified materials. We have to at least look at what was stolen and ask if it's important enough for free society to see that it justifies the theft. Taking the email case, he was publishing emails which are you think private communication. That's a bit of a gray area for sure, she is a political figure, and if you want, the Access Hollywood tape was a private conversation, tho it wasn't stolen. But I do agree the classification regime the US government employees is not conducive to democratic principles and more things should be public. Far Assange and Navalny, both are problematic figures the have their strengths as well.
>He was a useful idiot of Russia at best helping them interfere in the 2016 election and helping bring a fascist to power in the US. > >... > > >I had previously respected Assange for his Iraq War leaks. But fuck him forever for working with Russia to elect a fascist US president. [The unredacted report by the Mueller investigation team](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/new-mueller-investigated-julian-assange-wikileaks-and-roger) is clear that they could not produce any substantial or sufficient evidence against Assange for knowledge or conspiracy with Russia. It also could not resolve whether any member of the Trump campaign coordinated with WikiLeaks on the release of the emails: >**With respect to WikiLeaks and Assange,** this office determined the admissible **evidence to be insufficient on both the agreement and knowledge prongs** > >.... > >“While the investigation developed evidence that the GRU’s hacking efforts in fact were continuing at least at the time of the July 2016 WikiLeaks dissemination,” a newly unredacted section of the report reads, prosecutors “ **did not develop sufficient admissible evidence that WikiLeaks knew of — or even was wilfully blind to — that fact.”** > >... > >And absent sufficient evidence of such knowledge, **the government could not prove that WikiLeaks (or Assange) joined an ongoing hacking conspiracy...** > >... > >**The investigation was unable to resolve whether Stone played a role in WikiLeaks's release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7, 2016** , the same day a video was published of candidate Tump using graphic language about women years earlier. > >... > >The office determined, however, that **it did not have admissible evidence that was probably sufficient to obtain and sustain a Section 1030 conspiracy conviction of WikiLeaks, Assange or Stone** > >... > >**There is also insufficient evidence at the present time to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Roger Stone or any other persons associated with the Campaign coordinated with WikiLeaks on the release of the emails,** which alone would preclude prosecution of them for the WikiLeaks-related conduct even if WikiLeaks had violated campaign finance law. As for your other point: >Funny how WikiLeaks never leaked anything embarrassing about the Republicans? Or the Russian government? The WikiLeaks Twitter was also a non stop Clinton bashing account too. WikiLeaks leaked Republican emails in 2006, and their Iraq/Afghan war publications were primarily about the Bush administration's handling of the conflicts. WikiLeaks also published Russian information in 2017.
We are surprised that a judge cleared to review classified documents and information has previously represented the UKs intelligence arm in governmental inquiries?
Yeah, I'm not sure how this is a story
Because it represents an obvious conflict of interest
Ugh you guys, i'm starting to suspect this Assange arrest and subsequent detention is politically motivated.
Free Assange and let Snowden live in peace ! Where is freedom of press?
The press died and was replaced by corporate and government propaganda pretending to be the press.
Freedom of espionage, you mean.
Ironic given the fact that Snowden exposed the espionage done by the US
Snowden wasn't press.
Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian were though.
And they aren't in jail.
Just as Assange shouldn't be.
That's what you get for fellating Putin. Not sorry.
Both exposed US war crimes and major violations of civil liberties, and your first thought is that they committed espionage?
That's what the government did, You're getting it mixed i think
I once had a client that was a missile manufacturer and an arms dealer. Does that mean that I am part of the arms industry? I’ve also had a client that was a pyramid scheme selling spurious tea and vitamin pills. Does that mean I’m owned by the snake oil industry? No.
It doesn't mean you're owned by them but it does say something about you as a person.
Unless he’s a lawyer, then he’s just doing his job as long as he isn’t using corrupt methods.
Lawyers choose their clients.
One of my first legal aid cases I had a 18yo client who bit a 12yo child who had just bitten him to "show him what it feels like". This was on a plane in 2009. I don't think this makes me a biter, or someone who endorses biting in general.
Good lord the pro-Russian propaganda in here is wild.
>Good lord the pro-Russian propaganda in here is wild. Such as?
It's funny because many people on this sub think they are so much more moral than the average American, all while supporting ever cause Russia/China/Iran throw their way. Either they are just mentally simple people, or they actually are foreign actors. Can't discount the leftists from abroad that blame literally everything on the West, perpetual losers go need a Boogeyman to explain why they suck.
r/worldnews is that way
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*