The Australian Julian Assange has been held in the Belmarsh high-security prison in London
for four and a half years now.
However, according to Prof.
Nils Melzer, the former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture - innocent and therefore unlawful.
Melzer holds the Chair of Human Rights at the Academy of International Humanitarian
Law and Human Rights in Geneva and is Professor of International Law
at the University of Glasgow.
In 2010, Julian Assange published material via his internet platform Wikileaks which,
among other things, provided evidence of war crimes committed by the USA during the Iraq war.
Instead of the judiciary taking action to investigate this evidence and punish
these crimes, the US government has launched a veritable hunt for Assange.
For example, the USA has submitted an extradition request to the UK after one
global media smear and lie campaign after another was launched against Assange.
Before his unlawful arrest, Assange had sought protection from political persecution
in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
This protection was withdrawn in 2019.
British authorities then used force to abduct him from the embassy.
He was then imprisoned in London's Belmarsh maximum security prison
until the present day.
British courts have now dealt with the USA's extradition request.
In the first instance, a British court ruled that
Assange may not be extradited.
However, he was not released afterwards.
When the USA appealed against this ruling, the extradition request was granted
in the second instance.
A final hearing will now take place before the highest instance of the British High
Court on February 20 and 21, 2024.
Prof.
Nils Melzer dealt with the Assange case in his role as UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.
Like the majority of people in the western world, he also trusted
the rule of law and the free press.
He was therefore initially unwilling to get involved in Julian Assange's case.
He was convinced that Assange was a rapist and a narcissist;
as claimed by the media.
It was only when he visited Assange in prison and researched the facts that he saw through
the deceptive maneuvers of the states involved and the judiciary and media there and
began to see the case for what it really was:
the story of a political persecution.
The following aspects, among others, became clear to him during the review of the case:
1. there was evidence of psychological torture in London's Belmarsh prison.
2.
Several courts in Sweden and the United Kingdom have committed legal malpractice despite clear exculpatory evidence.
3. The mass media around the world have Assange portrayed in a one-sidedly negative way.
4.
After the invalidation of all allegations of rape, the mass media have nevertheless hardly campaigned for the
rehabilitation of Assange and the publication of US war crimes.
The following questions now arise:
Are the bending of the law by the courts and defamation by the mass media in the Assange
case just an unfortunate individual fate?
Or are there other examples of how someone who reports a crime or addresses
grievances is suddenly turned into a criminal offender by the
justice system and the media?
The coronavirus crisis in particular has shown that the bending of the law in the Assange case and the defamation
by the media is not an isolated incident.
Rather, it is a systemic failure of the judiciary and the media.
Here are a few examples from the recently broadcast program "Justizbankrott"
of extremely popular and committed doctors, some of whom publicly criticized
the corona measures and were punished
by the judiciary for it: - Dr. Bianca Witzschel:
Has been in custody for 11 months on
charges of issuing false mask certificates, house
searches of 84 relatives and
patients, trial in a high-security wing,
the doctor is presented in handcuffs,
40 trial days are planned - the punishment
cannot be overlooked - Dr. Rolf Kron:
Sentenced to probation and a fine of €10,000 for allegedly providing
false mask certificates, temporarily banned from
his profession, 15-month account freeze
- Dr. Martin Bündner:
Sentenced to a fine by the court for allegedly issuing
false certificates for children and adolescents after massive prejudice
and vilification by the mass media - Dr. Heinrich Habig:
Was held in pre-trial detention for 11 months for false vaccination certificates without charge or conviction, although only 6 months of pre-trial
detention is permitted by law except in justified serious exceptional cases.
- Dr. Bodo Schiffmann:
Had to endure two house searches because of criticism of corona policy, 81,000
patient files were confiscated, which meant his financial ruin.
- Dr. Ronald Weikl:
was charged with over 1,000 counts of allegedly false mask attestations.
As he was able to prove the adverse health effects of long-term mask wearing,
the charges had to be dropped.
Nevertheless, he was sentenced to a fine of €20,000 for disloyalty to the system.
According to the judge, the medical facts of the case were irrelevant.
- Prof. Dr. Stefan Hockertz: brought facts about Corona that were not in line with the government.
Consequence: house search, freezing of his entire assets due to alleged tax evasion.
- Dr. Jens Bengen: spoke out publicly against the coronavirus vaccination and face masks.
Investigations by the public prosecutor's office and the medical association as well as constant defamation;
Arrested and committed to a closed institution, where he
officially died of suicide - Dr. Monika Jiang:
Sentenced to two years' imprisonment, banned from practicing his profession and fined for mask testing.
Even the practice assistant was fined.
Interim conclusion:
Despite the fact that it has been proven that long-term mask-wearing can have adverse
health consequences, lawyers who are not doctors themselves are cracking down on
medical professionals who sincerely wanted the best for their patients.
Similar to the Assange case, there was no outcry in the media about these scandalous verdicts.
At best, they reported neutrally, often luridly, by prejudging
the accused or casting them in a slanted light.
In addition to the doctors, important investigators were also taken in by the judiciary.
In December 2021, investigative journalist Gerhard Wisnewski had to endure
a house search under false pretenses.
Lateral thinking frontman
Michael Ballweg was held in pre-trial detention for over 9 months until a court found that most of the charges were too thin for a trial.
Legal action was also taken against the best-known critic of the coronavirus measures, Prof.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi - until his retirement professor and chairman at the Institute of Medical
Microbiology and Hygiene at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and editor-in-chief of the medical
journal "Medical Microbiology and Immunology" - and charges were brought against
him for alleged incitement to hatred and anti-Semitism.
Although he was acquitted at first instance [www.kla.tv/26149], the public prosecutor's office
has appealed against this decision.
Bhakdi was long regarded as a highly respected personality.
In 2005, he was awarded the Order of Merit of the State of Rhineland-Palatinate and has received
numerous honors from various universities.
Due to his critical statements on the MRNA vaccination, he was severely
defamed by the media as a "swearer", "corona denier", etc.
These examples clearly show that the judiciary and the leading media, as the so-called 3rd and 4th
powers in the state, do not act independently of politics, but are obviously intertwined with it.
The separation of powers apparently only works in part at best.
The following questions now arise:
1. what are the reasons for this systemic failure of the judiciary and the media as
the third and fourth estate in the state?
2 Why have the judiciary and the media done so little to fulfill their mandate to provide
real justice and fair, comprehensive reporting in politically explosive cases?
An answer to these questions can be found by looking at the entanglements of
the leading media with politics and high finance.
For example, at the so-called Bilderberg Conference, representatives of the mass media
meet behind closed doors with business bosses, high finance, the aristocracy
and political decision-makers every year.
But not to report on their discussions and agreements.
On the contrary, the media present are also obliged to maintain
absolute silence about the content.
Then what is the point of their participation if they do not report?
They influence public opinion in the direction of the goals agreed at the conference,
which we explained in detail in the program "Bilderberg
Group - the secret shadow government?".
To understand the extent of this influence, it is worth taking a
look at which media have already taken part in these conferences:
USA: Washington Post, New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Bloomberg, The Wallstreet
Journal, Newsweek International, Thomson Magazine
Canada: National Post, CB Media Ltd, Canadian Business, Le Devoir, The Globe and Mail
Great Britain: The Times, The Economist, The Financial Times, Sunday Times,
The Observer, Daily Telegraph France:
Le Monde, Le Figaro, Les Echo's, L'Obs, Le Point, Valeurs Actuelles Germany: Axel
Springer Verlag, Burda Verlag, Die Zeit, Süddeutsche Zeitung Austria: Standart
Media AG Switzerland: Ringier
Inc, Tamedia AG Spain: El Pais,
Prisa Media Portugal: Jornal
Expesso Italy: the newspapers
Corriere della Sella, La Stampa and Domani, the television channels
RAI TV, LA7 TV Ireland: Irish Times
Netherlands: NRD
Handelsblad Sweden: the newspapers Svenska Dagbladet and Dagens
Nyheter Denmark: the newspapers Weekendavisen, Politiken and Berlingske Tidende
Norway: Aftenposten Finland:
Helsingin Sanomat - the largest daily newspaper in Finland Iceland:
Morgunbladid Greece:
the newspaper Kathimerini Turkey: Hürriyet
In view of these entanglements between the world's leading media and the world's most important
decision-makers, it is not surprising that reporting on the Julian Assange case is also hesitant.
After all, these conferences are also attended by the forces that helped initiate wars - such
as the Iraq war - and profit from these wars, such as BlackRock, all of which
are involved in the largest arms companies.
Obviously, the judiciary is also part of these entanglements, even if
it is not present at such conferences.
However, the example of the President of the Federal Constitutional Court,
Stephan Harbarth, who was examined in detail in the programme "Die Akte Stephan Harbarth",
clearly shows how these networks operate.
Before joining the Federal Constitutional Court, Harbarth was an active CDU politician
for 30 years. He also studied at Yale University, an elite cadre school with a few
hand-picked students, where he was certainly able to make important contacts.
As a lawyer, he represented the large corporations at the very law firm that also
worked out the cum-ex fraud transactions.
During his time as a member of parliament, Harbarth received high additional income,
over one million euros in 2016 alone, the origin of which is unknown.
Harbarth was appointed to the office of constitutional judge by politicians, even though
he had no experience as a judge and was not a specialist in constitutional law.
Under his leadership, 239 constitutional complaints were lodged against the federal
government's measures during the coronavirus measures in 2020 alone,
of which just three were upheld.
Given Harbarth's previous history, this is hardly surprising.
It can be assumed that in other countries, well-connected people will
also be promoted by politicians to the highest judicial offices.
If someone from the lower levels really does break away, they will suffer the same fate as the Weimar
family court judge Christian Dettmar, who lifted the obligation to wear masks in two schools.
A house search was ordered against him, his PC and cell phone were confiscated and he
himself was convicted of obstruction of justice and suspended from his judgeship.
It is highly questionable whether Julian Assange will be able to lead another life in freedom
in the face of this infiltrated justice system.
His courageous educational work has put him in the crosshairs of powerful financial interest
groups - such as the Bilderbergers - who see this as a threat to the implementation
of their agenda.
But it is precisely these interest groups, such as the Bilderbergers or the WEF, that
demonstrably make a lot of money from every war, every pandemic and every crisis.
They clearly have the judiciary and the mass media worldwide in their grip
like an octopus, so that they can no longer fulfill their mandate.
Using the fate of Assange and the other people mentioned, they want to show the whole world
what happens to those who jeopardize the achievement of their perfidious goals through their
illuminating research and publications.
They want to show everyone: "Don't copy them, otherwise you'll end up the same way."
In a public speech, the former UN Special Rapporteur Prof. Nils Melzer described how Assange,
by publishing the secret documents and videos, has effectively shone a
spotlight on the war crimes committed by the US government.
This also brought to light their violations of the law under the guise of law
and the serious violations of human rights.
But then the tables were turned and Julian Assange was spotlighted.
The media only discussed his character and mistakes and no longer the crimes committed
in the name of the US government.
Despite massive evidence, no one was brought to justice.
Instead, those who expose the atrocities are now prosecuted as criminals.
Julian Assange revealed torture, but now he himself is being tortured.
The UN Special Rapporteur rightly denounces this abuse in his speech and encourages
everyone to turn their attention back to the real criminals:
"So I think it's high time for us to turn on our own headlights and point them at
the elephant in the room [i.e. the real criminal] and stop discussing the
personality of a man who has done more than enough to provide
services to our society.
The time has come to realize what this is all about.
We cannot afford to have states with uncontrolled power.
People cannot handle uncontrolled power.
That is why we have the separation of powers, that is why we have created
the system of mutual control.
But these controlling bodies, these branches of state and government, tend to collaborate
with each other if we don't monitor them.
And that's why we have the free press, which has the task of doing just that.
But a press that does not do this is not free.
It is not a press at all.
It is just a public relations department of these governments.
Therefore, the emergence of Wikileaks is just the natural consequence
of the media not doing their job.
Because someone has to inform and empower the public.
And now it's up to us to step into the breach.
Yes, this is about Julian Assange.
But it is even more about all of you, your children and your families.
In 20 years' time, will you still feel you can find out the truth
about what your government is doing?
Or will it then have become a crime to inform you about what your government is
doing with your tax money to other people who are
not guilty of any wrongdoing.
So it's up to us, we have to take our own headlights in our hands
and point them at the elephant."
At the end of this program, we would like to show you simple but very effective ways
in which each individual can step into the breach or shine a light on the elephant
- i.e. the actual criminal: 1. raise your voice
and share this background information with everyone around you who is
not yet aware of it.
2. disseminate You regularly visit our Kla. TV programs to people interested in them.
3. pass on our free, internet-independent and weekly educational newspaper Stimme und
Gegenstimme - S&G for short - to people in your environment just as regularly.
4. take part in demonstrations demanding the release of Julian Assange.
→ Dates under the following links:
In this way, you too can help to shed light and enable people
to form an informed opinion.
If you, dear viewers, do not hesitate to get involved here, a worldwide chain reaction
of light-making will arise.
And then the elephant's time in the dark is over.