Contributed by Adam Carlton

The more I hear about what is being thrown against Julian Assange, the angrier I get. Not one, but possibly three politically driven show trials are under way.

I am angry at an Australian government that refuses to stand up for common decency, demand an end to this travesty, and work for one of our own to be brought home.

Some of my wrath is also directed against those who should know better, admit his exposures were a good thing for us all, but excuse away injustice, suggesting he would get affair trial, he must be guilty of the Swedish accusations, or he is a Russian agent who damaged the Democrats and helped to get Donald Trump into the White house.

Giving credence to unproved allegations like these is to play the tune composed by those who want to silence WikiLeaks.

It should not be necessary to point out, that the trial process being used in the United Kingdom is not fair.

Julian Assange got a year in prison for the minor charge of skipping bail. Note that Judge Deborah Taylor, refused to consider that his fear of extradition to the United States as a mitigating circumstanceand ruled it inadmissible, even as the application for such an extradition was being made. She added that she could not imagine a more serious offense. Really.

The judge is a member of the british aristovracy and daughter of the late Baron and Judge Peter Taylor. This is the man who had who infamously presided over in some of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history, including trials of Irish accused of carrying out acts for the Irish Republican Army, the Stefan Kiszko and Jeremy Thorpe cases.

Judge Deborah Taylor is a chip of the old block, who had herself been found forging documents, She is the perfect choice of the British establishment, to stitch up Julian Assange.

The charge connected to the application for extradition, is that he conspired with Chelsea Manning to hack into a computer network and steal top secret documents. This is a transparently silly charge, because Chelsea Manning was an agent with access at the time. It only makes sense, when it is geared to get through legal obstacles.

Once on American soil, other charges can be applied.

The legal process underway in the United Kingdom, and the extradition attempt, constitute an abuse of legal process, and amounts to a conspiracy between two governments, to use the law for obvious political ends.

Assange is locked up a cell in the highest maximum security prison in the United Kingdom, under circumstances supposed to be reserved for the most dangerous criminals. There is a strict limit on his aright to present evidence and question.

We know that if he is extradited to the United States, new charges are likely, and they will not be heard in a normal court.

Proceedings will occur before an an appointed tribunal instead of before judge and jury. They will not be transparent. The case will be based on evidence that will not have to be proved and cannot be contested through cross examination. Julian Assange will only be allowed limited representation by legal council. The outcome will be what was already decided before.

A precedent for this sort of tribunal was established with the Guatanamo cases, which by the way, involved two Australians.

The case for extradition has not been presented yet in detail and the British court has set 12 June as the deadline for this to be done.

An attempt was made to bribe Chelsea Manning, by offering her freedom, in exchange for a statement that would implicate Assange in the charge made against him and help with the extradition process. She refused to comply, and the attempt to manufacture false evidence backfired.

To complete the trifecta, Sweden has re-opened the case involving questioning over allegations made over sexual misbehaviour. Along the way, the case has been elevated to allegations involving rape. According to a statement from WikiLeaks, “considerable political pressure,” has been put put on prosecutors, and deputy chief prosecutor Eva-Marie Persson eventually complied.

Assange has never refused to answer questions surrounding the case. He has stated hid willingness to comply repeatedly. but he has refused to willingly put himself in a position where he will be extradited to the United States.

Given that this fear of extradition has now proved to have been right, this makes sense.

Sweden has a history is working with the United States to render sought individuals to that country. It occurred with Guantanamo. The suspicion that the Sweden case is an attempt to facilitate the extradition, if it proves too difficult to do so through the United Kingdom, is credible.

This is also an attempt to throw mud through character assassination and make the rest of it more credible to the gullible.

What makes this case suspicious, is not only that Julian Assange has never refused to answer questions. It is highly political, and circumstances around the allegations appear full of holes. The initial report tabled to the police, concerned unprotected sex and the wish to compel a medical examination. This was elevated to an investigation of a crime of higher level. Not by the police, but by the politically appointed Prosecutors Office.

Given the politicised nature of the case, a fair hearing is pretty much impossible. And no guarantee has been given by the Swedish government that he won’t be extradited.

Julian Assange is being set up as an example to discourage others from letting inconvenient facts be known.

Many in Australia and around the world regard this man as a hero. He is not alone. His persecution will not go unanswered. Good people will stand up in increasing numbers. Others will stand in to reveal inconvenient truths.

Julian Assange will be freed and vindicated.