Peter Klevius judicial criticism of plea deals

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Read Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.

 

The plea deal was a ploy by the US Government to avoid embarrassment - but BBC continues following criminal US lead by implying guilt.

Julian Assange never risked anyone's life - but he told the world that US both risked and did murdered and tortured innocent people.

Peter Klevius judicial criticism of plea deals: 

A plea deal is a medieval form of torture that US has reinstated (to its other forms of torture) - and some other countries have followed. Even though Assange has accepted a plea deal to avoid trial, a truly independent judge could still change the sentence proposed in the plea deal. So if the sentencing judge accepts it, one may ask why? This constitutes the weak link because if the judge is independent as s/he should be, then what value does a sentencing proposal in a plea deal really have?

Peter Klevius accuses $-freeloader and warmonger rogue state US for libel, kidnapping and torture of Assange, and for committing the world's biggest financial fraud - and for using the stolen money to continue producing wars around the world.

A plea deal is a medieval form of torture that US has reinstated - and some other countries have followed. Even though Assange has accepted a plea deal to avoid trial, a judge could still change the sentence proposed in the plea deal. So if the sentencing judge accepts it, one may ask why? This constitutes the weak link because if the judge is independent as s/he should be, then what value does a sentencing suggestion in a plea deal really have?

Moreover:

Chip Gibbons, policy director of Defending Rights & Dissent had this statement,

    “We are ecstatic that Julian Assange will go free. Assange’s only ‘crime’ was exposing US war crimes as a journalist and publisher. The world is a better place because of Assange and WikiLeaks publishing revelations from whistleblower Chelsea Manning. Manning and Assange should both be lauded as heroes.

    Yet, as soon as WikiLeaks began making these historic revelations, the United States brought down the hammer. Both Manning and Assange were subject to what UN officials described as torture. Manning was imprisoned under the Espionage Act and Assange was subject to a litany of abuses by US intelligence services. In 2021, it was revealed that after WikiLeaks published information about secret CIA hacking tools, the CIA considered kidnapping or even assassinating the journalist.

    In 2019, the Trump administration reversed the previous administration’s course and brought an unprecedented indictment against Assange. Although Obama had normalized the practice of using the Espionage Act to imprison journalists’ sources, this marked the first time a publisher or journalist had been charged under the Act. A successful conviction would have set a precedent that would have allowed for the prosecution of national security journalists broadly. Assange’s freedom is therefore welcome news. And it would not be possible without the global grassroots movement to defend press freedom by demanding the US government halt this monstrous persecution.

    While today is a day of rejoicing, it is troubling that the US government ever brought these charges against Assange. And while we completely understand and support Assange’s decision to walk free, we are troubled that the government forced him to plead guilty under the Espionage Act to do so. Plea deals, it must be stressed, set no legal precedent. As far we are concerned, the US government’s decision to charge Assange under the Espionage Act remains unconstitutional due to the First Amendment’s press freedom guarantees.

    Our fight is far from over. The Espionage Act remains on the books and Assange’s victory only strengthens  our resolve to end the Espionage Act’s threat to our democracy once and for all.”