Studies find flu vaccines were effective in 2022-2023 flu season

Vaccines reduced risk of both moderate and severe disease for all ages

Peer-Reviewed Publication

REGENSTRIEF INSTITUTE

The prospect of the worrisome triple threat of COVID, RSV and flu was assuaged last year by the effectiveness of flu vaccines. Two recent studies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s VISION Network have found that flu vaccines were effective for all ages against both moderate and severe flu in the U.S. during the 2022-2023 flu season.

Both the pediatric and adult VISION Network studies analyzed flu-associated emergency department (E.D.)/urgent care visits (indicative of moderate disease) and hospitalization (indicative of severe disease) from October 2022 through March 2023, a flu season in which far fewer individuals were social distancing or wearing masks than during the two previous flu seasons.

Vaccination reduced the risk of flu-related E.D./urgent care visits and hospitalization for those 6 months to 17 years by almost half. For adults, regardless of age, vaccination reduced the risk of E.D. urgent care visits by almost half and reduced the risk of hospitalization by slightly more than a third.

These results led the authors of both studies to conclude that flu vaccination is likely to substantially reduce illness, death and strain on healthcare resources.

“We study the effectiveness of flu and other vaccines to ensure that our processes for forecasting the most effective vaccines are working well and therefore might potentially also be translatable to other diseases as well,” said Shaun Grannis, M.D., M.S., a co-author of both the pediatric and adult VISION Network studies, Regenstrief Institute vice president for data and analytics and a family practice physician. “Given influenza’s significant disease burden -- for example the H1N1 (swine) flu killed over a quarter of a million people worldwide in 2009-2010 -- we want to make sure that we understand virus trends as well as other factors and that we're continuing to do as well as and as much as we can to reduce the flu disease burden.”

Both the pediatric and adult studies evaluated electronic health record (EHR) data from sites across three healthcare systems in California, Utah, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Flu vaccine effectiveness: 2022-2023 flu season for ages 6 months to 17 years

Vaccination reduced the risk of flu-related E.D./urgent care visits (moderate disease) by 48 percent and hospitalization (severe disease) by 40 percent overall across ages 6 months to 17 years. Broken down by age, risk reduction was greater for those age 6 months to 4 years than older children and adolescents.

Ages 6 months to four years

• Vaccination reduced the risk of E.D./urgent care visits (moderate disease) by 53 percent.
• Vaccination reduced the risk of hospitalization (severe disease) by 56 percent.

Ages 5 to 17 years

• Vaccination reduced the risk of E.D./ urgent care visits (moderate disease) by 38 percent.
• Vaccination reduced the risk of hospitalization by 46 percent.

Approximately 30 percent of E.D./critical care visits for acute respiratory illness in children and adolescents were positive for flu, as were 14 percent of hospitalizations.

“Vaccine Effectiveness Against Pediatric Influenza-A-Associated Urgent Care, Emergency Department, and Hospital Encounters During the 2022-2023 Season, VISION Network” is published in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Flu vaccine effectiveness: 2022-2023 flu season for ages 18-64

Vaccine effectiveness was 45 percent against E.D./critical care visits(moderate disease) for adults under age 65. Effectiveness against hospitalization (severe disease) was 23 percent.

Adults younger than 65 typically received standard-dose inactivated vaccines.

Flu vaccine effectiveness: 2022-2023 flu season for ages 65 and older

Vaccine effectiveness was 41 percent against both flu-associated E.D./urgent care visits (moderate disease) and hospitalization (serious disease) for this age group.

Adults age 65 and older typically received enhanced vaccine products.

“Influenza vaccine effectiveness against influenza-A-associated emergency department, urgent care, and hospitalization encounters among U.S. adults, 2022-2023” is published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

“As with COVID, the dynamics of flu differs between children and adults. But we found that for both children and adults, vaccination significantly reduced the need for trips to the E.D, or critical care center and for hospitalization for flu-related illnesses last flu season and this is encouraging,” said Dr. Grannis. “I'm hopeful that we will see similar or even better vaccine effectiveness during the current flu season. Even if they do experience symptoms, people who are vaccinated typically tend to have milder, shorter cases of the flu, a viral illness which can carry a severe disease burden.

“The vaccine effectiveness we saw in last year’s flu season is encouraging. As both a research scientist and a primary care physician, I urge everyone to be vaccinated for flu this year and every year – it’s good for each person’s health and the health of your community.”

About Shaun Grannis, M.D., M.S.
In addition to his role as the vice president for data and analytics at Regenstrief Institute, Shaun Grannis, M.D., M.S., holds the Regenstrief Chair in Medical Informatics and is a professor of family medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine.

 

---

JOURNAL

The Journal of Infectious Diseases

DOI

10.1093/infdis/jiad542 

ARTICLE TITLE

Influenza vaccine effectiveness against influenza-A-associated emergency department, urgent care, and hospitalization encounters among U.S. adults, 2022-2023

 

Worsening distress among Latinos in the United States

Researchers find the threat of deportation leads to psychological distress among both Latino citizens and noncitizens.

Peer-Reviewed Publication

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY

Changes to the social and political landscape between 2011-2018, with dramatic events such as DACA rule changes, new presidential leadership, immigration bills and more, have left one major threat looming— deportation. 

How this threat has impacted the mental health of some undocumented Latino immigrants in the United States has been previously studied, but new research has found it’s not just undocumented immigrants who feel at risk. 

Analyzing data from 2011-2018, Amy Johnson, assistant professor of sociology at Lehigh University, and a team of research collaborators have found an increase over time in psychological distress among Latinos, both citizens and noncitizens, in the U.S. 

The study, “Deportation Threat Predicts Latino U.S. Citizens and Noncitizens’ Psychological Distress, 2011-2018,” co-authored by Johnson, Christopher Levesque, assistant professor of law and society and sociology at Kenyon College, Neil A. Lewis, Jr., associate professor of communication and social behavior at Cornell University, and Asad L. Asad, assistant professor of sociology at Stanford University, is forthcoming in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). 

Looking at Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), for example, the researchers found when President Obama announced temporary reprieve from deportation for some undocumented immigrants, it relieved distress for naturalized citizens. 

This same pattern occurred following the announcement of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). Oppositely, the dramatic societal event of the Trump presidency triggered anxiety and depressive symptoms among Latino noncitizens, worsening well-being. 

While there are direct impacts of changes to the federal administration and its policies, it’s not just presidential elections that matter, the research determines.

Beyond the federal level, the researchers find that day-to-day environments about immigration and immigration enforcement also impact psychological distress. For example, ICE’s detainer requests to local police, or even conversations online. 

“How people are talking about immigration and how salient immigration and deportation are to day-to-day life is potentially equally as important to distress as these more dramatic changes and events, like the Trump election or DACA,” Johnson explains.

It’s important to note that U.S.-born Latinos are not susceptible to deportation, but these events still impact their psychological health as well. Using Google Trends, the researchers show that U.S.-born Latinos experienced higher distress in periods where there are spikes in Google searches to topics related to deportation and immigration. 

Latinos across all citizenship statuses are responding to this feeling of deportation threat in a negative way, the researchers find. But the exact pathway through which that happens depends on citizenship status.

“The fact that racial and ethnic divisions are so prominent that even citizens feel the threat of deportation, and distress related to deportation threat, is really striking,” says Johnson. 

Although the impact of deportation threat could increase during the highly polarizing 2024 election year, it’s not just federal policy to consider as a solution, the researchers emphasize. Creating a sense of cultural belonging is essential as well. 

“We concretely show that the deportation-focused approach to immigration that the U.S. has been taking is psychologically damaging even to U.S. citizens,” says Johnson. “Moving forward, we can make the argument for policy change around deportation, but equally so, we can advocate for cultural practices of inclusion and belonging.”

---

JOURNAL

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

ARTICLE TITLE

Deportation Threat Predicts Latino U.S. Citizens and Noncitizens' Psychological Distress, 2011-2018

Local Papers Across the US Are Refusing to Cover the Movement for Ceasefire

Throughout the country, organizers for ceasefire are encountering acute bias from local media outlets.

By Sam Carliner
February 19, 2024
Source: Truthout



The movement for a ceasefire to end Israel’s war on Gaza has shone a spotlight on the role of corporate media in spreading pro-Israel narratives and minimizing the U.S. public’s access to accurate information about pro-Palestinian perspectives and those organizing in solidarity with Palestine. Protests have targeted legacy papers like The New York Times, Palestinian writers have lambasted Western journalists, and researchers have exposed a clear bias in national coverage against Palestinian voices and views sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle.

Across the country, ceasefire activists are finding that these biases in media coverage also extend to their local news outlets. Especially for organizers outside of major cities, it has been a challenge to get any coverage of actions in support of a ceasefire or sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians. When coverage does happen, it often implicitly conveys support for Israel or may even be outright hostile to those supporting the Palestinian struggle.

Absent Coverage

Against all odds, the wealthy suburbs of New Jersey have become a site of regular demonstrations calling for a ceasefire to end the war on Gaza. Particularly in the state’s 11th congressional district, the eighth wealthiest district in the United States, dozens of newly politicized community members have endured harassment while trying to build support for a ceasefire in their community.

One might not know that any of this is happening if one relied on the local blogs and news outlets that typically cover this part of the country.

This was recently made apparent to several organizers in NJ11 for Palestine, a coalition of activists working to get their representative, Mikie Sherrill, to support a ceasefire. In January, NJ11 for Palestine held a vigil outside of Sherrill’s office in Livingston to honor the (at the time) more than 22,000 Palestinians killed in Israel’s offensive. Upon announcement of the action, local Zionists organized a counter protest. The day of the vigil, hundreds of Zionists showed up to yell over those who were mourning the loss of Palestinian lives, going as far as to call a 7-year-old girl a “future generation’s terrorist” as she read the names of dead Palestinians. According to several organizers, Zionists also spit on a Palestinian who was acting as a safety marshal while he was walking alone and told an anti-Zionist Jewish couple that they did not count as Jews.

None of that harassment was mentioned in two different write-ups by local reporters. In fact, the vigil itself was not mentioned in either article. Both ignored all existence of protesters demanding a ceasefire which the pro-Israel rally was organized to counter. Though one local blog has covered subsequent vigils.

Immy Moustafa, an organizer with NJ11, sees it as an intentional omission on the part of local reporters.

“With the vigil, we were right across the street from each other,” Moustafa told Truthout. “You can’t claim you didn’t know. You can’t claim you didn’t see. There’s no reason other than an intentional deleting of what the full story is.”

Ali Aljarrah, one of the founders of NJ11 for Palestine, explained how this erasure of pro-Palestine activism contributes to the ongoing violence against Palestinians.


Especially for organizers outside of major cities, it has been a challenge to get any coverage of actions in support of a ceasefire.

“There’s this constant erasure of Palestinian history,” Aljarrah said. “So, when we’re talking about local media and its impact on Falasteen, that’s one thing to keep in mind. If local media’s not being honest in showing an event and demonstrations that are happening in support of Palestine … then it’s really showing that they’re complicit in this genocide and the erasure of Palestinians here in America.”

Over in Hudson County, it has been easier for activists to organize support for Palestine. Earlier in February, Ceasefire Now NJ, a coalition of organizations, succeeded at getting Union City to pass a ceasefire resolution. They did not, however, succeed at getting coverage of this victory from the county’s main newspaper, The Jersey Journal.

The struggle to get local media coverage extends beyond New Jersey.

Adnan Ahmed has been involved in a Minneapolis-based coalition that got the city to pass a ceasefire resolution. He also wrote an op-ed to try to grow support for Palestine in Minnesota, which was published in the independent news outlet UNICORN RIOT. Before giving the piece to UR, Ahmed pitched it to several different Minnesota-focused outlets, all of which either ignored or declined his piece.

“I thought I wrote a very mild essay,” Ahmed said. “I wrote it like I’m just gonna send it to some of the mainstream news outlets because they’re for Minnesota readers. So I purposely watered it down.”

Ahmed was declined by the Star Tribune, MinnPost and the Minnesota Reformer, which he described respectively as Minnesota’s right-leaning, centrist and more progressive outlets.

The widespread decline of local newspapers also limits opportunities for sympathetic coverage. Researchers at the Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications at Northwestern University have found that more than half of all counties in the United States have limited access to local news sources. This problem is exacerbated by corporate and often right-wing investors buying up local news outlets.
Implicit Bias

Even when activists have been able to get local reporters to cover the movement, they have found that the coverage does not provide sufficient context. For example, before the Union City ceasefire resolution, Ceasefire Now NJ attempted to get a ceasefire resolution passed in Jersey City. The Jersey Journal did cover that campaign, but did so in a way that organizers viewed as an obstacle.

An article published on November 28, ahead of the city council’s vote on the resolution, begins by claiming that, “the war began Oct. 7 when Hamas staged unprovoked attacks…”

Meera Jaffrey, an organizer with Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) North Jersey, was involved in the Jersey City campaign and criticized the local media coverage.

“The media bias definitely has an impact on the movement and people’s perception of the truth,” Jaffrey said. “Not only does this type of reporting thwart the ceasefire effort, its main intention, but it also helps to propagate anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic sentiment. Mainstream media is making activists in the ceasefire movement have to work harder for peace.”

Activist Kaitlin Blanchard has taken issue with similar coverage in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

“Centering Hamas as the reason for Israeli aggression is the biggest trope,” Blanchard told Truthout. “It is present in every single article.”


Even when activists have been able to get local reporters to cover the movement, they have found that the coverage does not provide sufficient context.

She said that the lack of context means even when equal weight is given to pro-Palestine activists and Zionists, it creates an implicit bias in support of Zionists.

“It is such a neutral blank slate that it ends up getting pulled right.… The dynamic between Palestine and Israel is presented without any analysis whatsoever, and so people don’t have the opportunity to engage with their own existing biases.”

This was also an issue for Wassim Hage, an organizer with the Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC) in the San Francisco Bay Area. Hage believes that the Bay Area is a rare place where local reporting has been mostly sympathetic to the movement. He credits this to the work that organizers have done over years to normalize support for the Palestinian struggle in Oakland and San Francisco. Despite his view that media coverage in these cities has been mostly sympathetic to the movement, the occasional negative tropes he sees are the same ones organizers throughout the country have encountered.

“In San Francisco, I think it would be like 800 to 1,200 public comments in person in support of a ceasefire resolution versus one public comment in opposition … [but it’s covered] as if they’re equal in terms of the political weight that they have.”

Another trope that Hage, Blanchard and several activists in New Jersey highlighted was the conflation of Zionists with “the Jewish community,” even as anti-Zionist Jews have played a prominent role in the ceasefire movement.

“AROC will always get the quote because we are the Arab center locally, but we’ve found that reporters are sometimes more reticent to quote anti-Zionist Jewish organizations,” Hage said.

Several different outlets in New Jersey have used this false conflation. Liz Cooper, who organizes with JVP North Jersey, believes that local media’s doubling down on this trope is due in large part to the growing anti-Zionist sentiment within the Jewish community. She said that while Jewish communities are divided over Palestine, most Jewish institutions remain staunchly Zionist and work to repress anti-Zionist Jewish voices.

“There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that the influential players in Jewish institutional life and local politics have been pointedly, aggressively hostile to Jewish Voice for Peace, and it’s precisely because the actual Jewish community consensus on Israel is breaking down,” Cooper told Truthout.
A Space for Struggle

Having grown up in the wealthy North Jersey suburbs, Cooper felt a need to write about the surprisingly left-leaning actions that have taken place. She wrote for a blog created by Ceasefire Now NJ about a weekly rally that has been held in South Orange, New Jersey.

“I was really motivated to try to speak on it because I felt like it was an important change in the political landscape of North Jersey that has not been reported on particularly thoroughly,” Cooper said.

Cooper added that Ceasefire Now NJ created their own blog not just to ensure that actions get coverage, but to make sure that the coverage accurately gets out the movement’s message. Several activists shared the sentiment that putting out their own media is essential considering the poor job local outlets have done.

“That is an opportunity that we need to take more seriously,” Blanchard said.

“The media is part of the problem,” Hage said. “The movement in general is starting to come around to the notion that we need to take media, whether it’s social media or popular media or press media, seriously, and kind of struggle on that terrain.”

Moustafa drew inspiration from the journalists in Gaza.

“On a much smaller scale, it’s the same thing that is happening in Gaza,” Moustafa said. “It is up to the average person to become a journalist and to show what is happening.… That’s kind of the coverage that we as pro-Palestinians are relying on because we’re not getting much coverage otherwise.”

No plea deal seen as Julian Assange faces what could be his final extradition hearing


By Rob Harris
February 20, 2024 —

London: The wife of jailed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said her husband was unlikely to accept any plea deal with the United States government in return for early release over espionage and computer hacking charges, believing it would set a dangerous precedent for journalism.

Assange, 52, an Australian hacker-turned-publisher, faces what could be his final court hearing in London starting on Tuesday (UK time) as he tries to stop his extradition to the US on charges relating to the 2010 disclosure of a huge cache of classified government documents.

Stella Assange, wife of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, attends a news conference ahead of Julian Assange’s final UK appeal hearing, in London.

The UK High Court has scheduled two days of arguments over whether Assange, who spent seven years of self-exile inside a foreign embassy and the past five years in prison, can ask an appeals court to block his transfer. If the court doesn’t allow the appeal to go forward, he could be sent across the Atlantic.

In several media appearances ahead of the hearing, Stella Assange said her husband was “extremely weak” both physically and mentally and warned the decision could be a matter of life and death.

She said on Monday she was convinced if her husband was extradited to the US “he will die” and has revealed that the Australian High Commissioner to the UK, Stephen Smith, intervened over Christmas to secure medical attention at Belmarsh Prison.

Three years ago, a London court temporarily blocked his extradition to the US on the grounds that the move would put him at risk of suicide.

Asked if Assange was considering a plea deal with the US Department of Justice, which could involve authorities downgrading the charges in exchange for a guilty plea, Stella Assange said her husband was not prepared to admit guilt when none had taken place.

“The only thing that he would be pleading to is journalism,” she told ABC. “He is being accused of receiving information from a source, information that was in the public interest, that belonged in the public, and the US is actually engaged in an admission, an admission that they now criminalise journalism.

“Journalism has been re-classed as espionage; an unprecedented prosecution has been taken against a publisher for the very first time in the more than 100-year history of this act and it is going to set a precedent … that can then be used against the rest of press anywhere in the world,” Stella Assange said.

The US wants Assange to face trial on one charge of computer hacking and 17 charges of violating the 1917 Espionage Act, relating to one of the biggest leaks of classified material in history. If found guilty, Assange faces up to 175 years in jail, although authorities have said any sentence is likely to be much lower.


US ambassador Caroline Kennedy has flagged a potential plea deal between Julian Assange and the US government.

Prosecutors say he conspired with US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to hack into a Pentagon computer and release secret diplomatic cables and military files on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The trove included 90,000 reports relating to the war in Afghanistan, 400,000 relating to the Iraq war and 250,000 US diplomatic cables.

He later published thousands of emails belonging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, a development that dominated her 2016 election campaign.

Lawyers for Assange plan to argue he can’t get a fair trial in the US, that a US-UK treaty prohibits extradition for political offences and that the crime of espionage was not meant to apply to publishers.

His lawyers believe his foreign nationality and his political opinions would make it difficult for him to get a fair trail. Also, they believe Biden may see Assange as “closer to a high-tech terrorist than a whistleblower”.


Assange saga
How the seat of Australian power swung behind Assange

Assange and his supporters have also argued his leaking of classified military documents should be protected under the First Amendment because he was acting as a journalist when he published the documents. Those who’ve questioned the charges include the editorial boards of the New York Times and The Guardian, as well as Amnesty International.

He has been held at London’s Belmarsh jail since April 2019 when he was sentenced for skipping bail conditions. He had previously spent seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy after breaking bail in 2012 when he was due to be extradited to Sweden on unrelated sexual assault charges, which were subsequently dropped. He was arrested and forcibly removed from the Ecuadorean embassy by British police in 2019.

Stella Assange told BBC Radio 4’s Today program that “this could very well be the final hearing for Julian”.

“Julian cannot, will never be safe in a US prison, there is no question about it,” she said. “We know that there are elections coming up in the United States. He will simply never be safe if he is in US custody.”


Assange ‘endangered lives’: Top official urges Australia to understand US concerns

If the London court rejects Assange’s plea for a full appeal, he could be extradited to the US once British officials approve his removal. His legal team plans to appeal an adverse ruling to the European Court of Human Rights, but they fear he could possibly be transferred before the court in Strasbourg, France, could halt his removal.

Australia’s parliament last week passed a motion calling for the return of Assange to Australia, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, one of 86 MPs to vote in favour against 42 who opposed. He said he hoped the case could be “resolved amicably”.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken last year pushed back against Australian government demands for an end to Assange’s prosecution, saying he was accused of “very serious criminal conduct”.



Rob Harris is Europe correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.Connect via email.

WikiLeaks founder Assange may be near the end of his long fight to stay out of the US

BRIAN MELLEY
Updated Mon, February 19, 2024 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange pauses as he makes a statement to the media gathered outside the High Court in London, Dec. 5, 2011. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is facing what could be his final court hearing in England over whether he should be extradited to the United States to face spying charges. The High Court will hear two days of arguments next week over whether Assange can make his pitch to an appeals court to block his transfer to the U.S. 

(AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, File)

LONDON (AP) — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's fight to avoid facing spying charges in the United States may be nearing an end following a protracted legal saga in the U.K. that included seven years of self-exile inside a foreign embassy and five years in prison.

Assange faces what could be his final court hearing in London starting Tuesday as he tries to stop his extradition to the U.S. The High Court has scheduled two days of arguments over whether Assange can ask an appeals court to block his transfer. If the court doesn't allow the appeal to go forward, he could be sent across the Atlantic.

His wife says the decision is a matter of life and death for Assange, whose health has deteriorated during his time in custody.

“His life is at risk every single day he stays in prison,” Stella Assange said Thursday. “If he’s extradited, he will die.”

WHAT IS ASSANGE CHARGED WITH?

Assange, 52, an Australian computer expert, has been indicted in the U.S. on 18 charges over Wikileaks' publication of hundreds of thousands of classified documents in 2010.

Prosecutors say he conspired with U.S. army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to hack into a Pentagon computer and release secret diplomatic cables and military files on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He faces 17 counts of espionage and one charge of computer misuse. If convicted, his lawyers say he could receive a prison term of up to 175 years, though American authorities have said any sentence is likely to be much lower.

Assange and his supporters argue he acted as a journalist to expose U.S. military wrongdoing and is protected under press freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Among the files published by WikiLeaks was video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack by American forces in Baghdad that killed 11 people, including two Reuters journalists.

“Julian has been indicted for receiving, possessing and communicating information to the public of evidence of war crimes committed by the U.S. government,” Stella Assange said. “Reporting a crime is never a crime.”

U.S. lawyers say Assange is guilty of trying to hack the Pentagon computer and that WikiLeaks’ publications created a “grave and imminent risk” to U.S. intelligence sources in Afghanistan and Iraq.

WHY HAS THE CASE DRAGGED ON SO LONG?

While the U.S. criminal case against Assange was only unsealed in 2019, his freedom has been restricted for more than a dozen years.

Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012 and was granted political asylum after courts in England ruled he should be extradited to Sweden as part of a rape investigation in the Scandinavian country.

He was arrested by British police after Ecuador’s government withdrew his asylum status in 2019 and then jailed for skipping bail when he first took shelter inside the embassy.

Although Sweden dropped its sex crimes investigation, Assange has remained in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison while the extradition battle with the U.S. continues.

A judge in London initially blocked Assange’s transfer to the U.S. on the grounds he was likely to kill himself if held in harsh American prison conditions.

But subsequent courts cleared the way for the move after U.S. authorities provided assurances he wouldn’t experience the severe treatment that his lawyers said would put his physical and mental health at risk.

Stella Assange and her husband's supporters have criticized those assurances as being meaningless because they are conditional.

WHAT ARE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES FROM THE HEARING?

If the London court rejects Assange's plea for a full appeal, he could be extradited to the U.S. once British officials approve his removal.

His legal team plans to appeal an adverse ruling to the European Court of Human Rights, but they fear he could possibly be transferred before the court in Strasbourg, France, could halt his removal.

If he prevails at this week's hearing, it would set the stage for an appeal process that is likely to further drag out the case.

“This procedure has been marked by prolonged and creeping time frames,” Wikileaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said. “We call it punishment through process. It is obviously a deliberate attempt to wear him down to punish him by taking this long.”

While the U.K. Supreme Court rejected Assange's petition, saying he didn't raise an “arguable point of law," his wife said his new bid will raise several points that are grounds for appeal.

Lawyers for Assange plan to argue he can't get a fair trial in the U.S., that a U.S.-U.K. treaty prohibits extradition for political offenses and that the crime of espionage was not meant to apply to publishers.

“The drafters of the Espionage Act did not intend for publishers to fall within its ambit,” Stella Assange wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Unchallenged expert evidence showed that receipt and publication of state secrets is routine, and that there was an ‘unbroken practice of non-prosecution’ of publishers. The prosecution ‘crosses a new legal frontier’ and ‘breaks all legal precedents.’”

WHAT IS ASSANGE'S CURRENT STATE?

Stella Assange said her husband's mental and physical health has declined dramatically and he's aged prematurely in prison. He experienced a mini-stroke in October 2021 and was so ill in December that he broke a rib coughing.

“I worry about him every time he gets sick,” Stella Assange said. “The mental toll is extreme.”

The couple, who got married at Belmarsh Prison almost two years ago, have two young sons, Gabriel and Max, who were conceived during Assange's stay in the embassy.

The boys visit their father in prison every week, undergoing security checks that include being patted down by guards and sniffed by dogs, Stella Assange said. The couple is protective of the children, who haven’t been told why their father is behind bars, according to their mother.

“I don’t think it’s fair on them to know what’s really going on,” she said as she choked up. “They know exactly what a prison is. They know that the guards are stopping Julian from leaving the prison even though he wants to come home.”

Julian Assange: His wife says he would not survive US jail if extradited

By Paul Gribben

BBC News

Reuters

Julian Assange's wife says the WikiLeaks founder would not survive being extradited from the UK to the US.

His final appeal will be heard at the High Court on Tuesday and Stella Assange says he is physically and mentally extremely weak.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that "this could very well be the final hearing for Julian".

Mr Assange is wanted in the US on espionage charges and faces up to 175 years in prison.

The case is about him publishing thousands of classified documents in 2010 and 2011, which American authorities say broke the law and endangered lives.

He argues that the case against him is politically motivated.

Stella Assange told the BBC that if her husband loses Tuesday's High Court case in London, "there's no possibility for further appeal in this jurisdiction".

However, she did raise the possibility of applying to the European Court of Human Rights to try to secure an emergency injunction.

She suggested that based on similar extradition cases there would only be "a matter of 24 hours" in which to make such a legal move.

She told the BBC that stress caused by the case had left her husband physically and mentally "in a very difficult place" knowing that "anything could happen this week.

"This case will determine if he lives or dies, essentially."

Stella Assange said her husband's health had deteriorated during this "extremely stressful time"

Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, has been kept at London's Belmarsh Prison since 2019 as the US extradition case proceeded.


In 2021, the High Court ruled that Mr Assange should be extradited, and rejected claims that poor mental health meant he was at risk of taking his own life in a US jail.

The Supreme Court upheld that decision the following year and the then Home Secretary Priti Patel confirmed the extradition order.

Australia's parliament last week upheld a motion calling on the US and UK to release Mr Assange ahead of this week's key hearing.

 

US Deceptions at the Heart of Assange Case

Lawyers for the WikiLeaks publisher charge that while British courts looked the other way, the U. S. has been distorting and withholding evidence to engineer his extradition, Cathy Vogan reports.

Don’t Extradite Assange March, central London, Feb. 22, 2020. 

(Steve Eason, Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0)

By Cathy Vogan
in London
Special to Consortium News

February 19, 2024

A  clue to some of the legal arguments Julian Assange’s lawyers will likely make at a two-day hearing this week at the High Court in London is contained in a 150-page submission that a judge rejected last June.

Justice Jonathan Swift’s three-page ruling to deny Assange’s application to appeal is what the imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher wants reversed at the hearing beginning Tuesday at the Royal Courts of Justice.

If he is again denied leave to appeal, this time by two judges, Assange could theoretically be put on a plane to the United States as early as Wednesday night. But the decision could be delayed for months.

Assange initially won his case in the magistrate’s court in January 2021, where extradition was blocked on health grounds and the dangerous conditions in U.S. prisons. But the U.S. won on appeal in October 2021 when it belatedly issued “assurances” that it would not mistreat Assange in the U.S.

That led to the British home secretary’s decision in 2022 to extradite Assange to the United States, which Assange’s team seeks to appeal.

In the U.S. he would be put on trial for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and for espionage in his publication of U.S. government secrets that covered up state crimes. If convicted, he could end up in a U.S. dungeon for up to 175 years — potentially a virtual life sentence.

Assange’s lawyers also want to appeal several points of law in the magistrate’s ruling that initially blocked extradition but which sided with the U.S.

In summarily denying Assange’s bid to appeal last year, Judge Swift wrote:


“There are 8 proposed grounds of appeal. They are set out at great length (some 100pp.) [sic. 150pp], but the extraordinary length of the pleading serves only to make clear that the proposed appeal comes to no more than an attempt to re-run the extensive arguments made to and rejected by the District Judge.

An appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 is not an opportunity for general rehearsal of all matters canvassed at an extradition hearing.”

Swift then restricted Assange’s legal team to just 20 pages for this week’s hearing. Rather than being a “general rehearsal” the court will hear serious points of law.

Points of Appeal

In an X thread, Stella Assange, Assange’s wife and former lawyer, has fleshed out these points. She wrote:


“1. Julian Assange should not be extradited to face prosecution and punishment for his political opinions exposing state criminality. Assange is being prosecuted for exposing US government criminality including war crimes and torture. There is extensive evidence of Assange’s political opinions on the importance of transparency in being able to hold governments accountable to deter future abuses. Extradition for political opinions is not allowed. The new evidence which emerged since the hearing of the C.I.A. plans to kidnap and/or kill Assange further supports this ground.

2. Julian Assange should not be extradited to face prosecution where the criminal law is being extended in an unprecedented and unforeseeable way. This is the first time in US history that a publisher has been prosecuted for obtaining or publishing (as opposed to leaking) US state secrets. The drafters of the Espionage Act did not intend for publishers to fall within its ambit, unchallenged expert evidence showed that receipt and publication of state secrets is routine, and that there was an ‘unbroken practice of non-prosecution’ of publishers.

The prosecution ‘crosses a new legal frontier’ and ‘breaks all legal precedents’. Extradition would therefore expose Assange to a novel and unforeseeable extension of criminal law. To extradite Assange would be a grave violation of Article 7 ECHR.

[Akin to the Fifth Amendment, Article 7 of the ECHR says that a crime must be foreseeable. There was no indication in 2010 that the press could be charged with espionage for obtaining and publishing classified information. The charges against Assange are unprecedented and there is no wording in the Espionage Act to warn foreign journalists of potential liability, according to U.S. constitutional attorney Bruce Afran.

The abuse of process and solid legal arguments against extradition were ignored in Justice Swift’s decision.]

European Court of Human Rights building in Strasbourg, France. 

(Guilhem Vellut, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Julian Assange should not be extradited because his prosecution amounts to a grave violation of his right to free speech. Publishing state secrets can play a vital role in a democratic society and criminal prosecution and conviction for such publications will deter the press from playing this ‘public watchdog’ role. The US indictment against Assange criminalizes essential journalistic practices and imposes a disproportionate sentence (175 years). To extradite Assange would be a grave violation of Article 10 ECHR.Julian Assange should not be extradited given that the US affirms that he may not be granted any First Amendment protections at all. The US said it would argue at trial that Assange would not get First Amendment protection (Free Speech protections) as he is not a US national (he is Australian). In other words, as a defendant he would be prejudiced at a trial as he is not a US citizen.Extradition should be barred because Julian Assange will not receive a fair trial. He cannot mount a public interest defense. In the US system, there is a tradition of coercive plea bargaining via overcharging to secure a conviction. Julian Assange faces 175 years for his journalism. The jury pool will be drawn from people connected to US Government national security agencies and contractors, and therefore likely to be prejudicial to Julian Assange. They will also be sensitive to public comments made by the US President and C.I.A. Director, tainting the presumption of innocence. Evidence obtained through the inhuman and degrading treatment of Chelsea Manning, spying on his lawyers and the illegal removal of Julian Assange’s legal files from the Ecuadorean Embassy mean there is no prospect for a fair trial. To extradite him would be a grave violation of Article 6 ECHR.The US-UK Treaty prohibits extradition for political offenses meaning Mr Assange’s extradition would violate the treaty, international law and amounts to an abuse of process (including Article 5 ECHR). The offenses with which Assange is charged are all formally “pure political offenses” and therefore are extradition-barred under article 4(1) of the US-UK Extradition Treaty. It is an abuse of process for the US to make an extradition request which is prohibited under the terms of the Treaty.Renewed application to admit fresh evidence about US plans to kidnap/render/assassinate Mr Assange in 2017 – relevant to his Article 2 and 3 ECHR rights. The C.I.A. planned to kidnap and assassinate Assange. This indicates that he will be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment if extradited to the US. To extradite Assange would mean delivering him right into the hands of the very people who plotted to assassinate him.The Extradition Treaty would allow the US to amend or add charges which could expose Julian Assange to the death penalty. Under the same facts alleged in the extradition request, Julian Assange can be recharged under provisions of the Espionage Act which carry the death penalty. It is noteworthy that Chelsea Manning was charged with ‘aiding the enemy’, which carries the death penalty and US government officials have publicly labelled the allegations against Assange as treason and called for the death penalty.”




Deception

Underlying these points is the deception practiced by the U.S. throughout the extradition process.

While the British courts have looked the other way, the United States has been distorting and withholding evidence to engineer Assange’s extradition, his lawyers charged.

The magistrate and High Court judges have conspired, or at the very least, deliberately ignored clear U.S. deception on a number of issues in Assange’s case, for example:The U.S. dropped the argument that Assange conspired with WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning to hide her identity while hacking into a U.S. government computer but kept it in the indictment anyway.
The indictment says harm was caused to U.S. informants by WikiLeaks releases even though a U.S. general testified in Manning’s court martial that there was no such evidence;
The U.S. failed to disclose to the British courts that Assange’s extradition and sentencing for a term beyond his natural life span would prevent him from cooperating with the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigations into alleged U.S. torture and other war crimes.
The U.S tried to link the WikiLeaks‘ “Wish List” to Manning’s leaks when it clearly was not.

Assange’s lawyers also allege the U.S. purposely withheld evidence in relation to the un-redacted State Department cables that would have failed to meet the test of dual criminality in an extradition case.

The defense accuses the U.S. of falsely arguing that a ban on extradition for political offenses appears only in the U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty and not in the Act of Parliament that governs the treaty. This is deceptive because the Act also bars extradition on the basis of political opinions.

Nevertheless, the magistrate in Assange’s case, chose only to deny extradition on health grounds. Stating that she would rely on the Act and not the Treaty, Vanesa Baraitser ignored that the Act does not allow extradition because of political viewpoints.

Assange’s lawyers argue that these deceptions by the U.S. should disqualify the case against him under the “Zakrzewski Abuse” doctrine.

The ‘Hacking’ Allegation

Chelsea Manning in New York, May 2021. 

(Chelsea E. Manning, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

The U.S. prosecution purposely distorted its own evidence from the 2013 Chelsea Manning court-martial to allege interaction between Assange and Manning to obtain classified information, the submission argues. So far two British courts have bought the narrative.

The U.S. indictment alleges Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Manning to break into government computers to hide Manning’s identity.

Although hiding a confidential source’s identity is part of a normal reporter-source relationship, testimony at Assange’s extradition hearing from a forensic examiner revealed there was no proof, and neither was he asked to prove that Manning ever communicated with Assange.

It was argued during Manning’s court martial 10 years ago that her purpose in asking for help in cracking a hash of a password to a local computer was likely to install video games, utilities, films and music videos – denied to active duty military personnel.

Defense witnesses in Manning’s case revealed that she regularly performed this task for fellow soldiers on computers, which had recently been re-imaged, thus wiping out what had previously been installed. According to the defense testimony of forensic examiner Patrick Eller at Assange’s 2020 extradition hearing, there was no classified material on the local computers.

Instead, classified data was held on external databases, to which Manning had top-secret security clearance and password access, as the U.S. indictment of Assange itself admits.

It was also known that no matter what login Manning used, investigators traced the IP address of the terminal that she used. So Manning could never hide her identity by logging in as another user and she could only use her own credential and her clearance to access these documents.

Plus, Manning had already transferred nearly all of the classified material to WikiLeaks before the chat between Manning and someone at WikiLeaks, which the indictment focuses on and alleges was Assange.

US Withdraws Claim, But Keeps It in Indictment

U.S. Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, D.C.

 (M.V. Jantzen, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Assange’s lawyers also wrote deep into its rejected submission that the U.S. had “belatedly” withdrawn its claim related to the Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion charge.

Gordon Kromberg, the assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, wrote that it was now “…not alleged that the purpose of the hash cracking agreement was to gain anonymous access” to any of the databases in question. (Page 124 of submission.)

Nevertheless, the prosecution persuaded the magistrate not to dismiss the charge. In her ruling Baraitser suggested there may have been some other purpose she didn’t understand, and so decided to leave it in, as “a matter for trial.”

In the submission, the defense pointed out how Eller’s testimony was not only irrefutable and definitive, but that the forensic evidence leading to the withdrawal of the U.S. argument had been brought forward at Manning’s court martial.

Assange’s team asserted plainly that the U.S. had misled the British court in contradiction of its own evidence, the defense wrote in their submission on Page 125. It says:


“Mr Eller told the DJ (in evidence which was not challenged) that it was the Government’s own evidence in Ms Manning’s proceedings which showed this. Castillo, Murua and Zakrzewski all show that an extradition request which misrepresents a government’s own evidence cannot be dismissed as a matter to ‘ventilate before a jury’ (Judgment, CB/2, §381).”

Although the so called “hacking” charge carries only a five year sentence, it is not minor. It has been the hook attempting to establish Assange as a conspirator with Manning to obtain classified information. It opened the way to charging him with espionage.

But with that disavowal, we appear to be left with the passive reception of material by WikiLeaks, with no evidence of conspiracy and no case for espionage.

Did Justice Swift even get to page 129 of the 150 page submission? He said there were only 100 pages and, dismissing the lot, appeared miffed at being ask to read so much. He flatly ignores arguments why the magistrate erred in her judgement or misunderstood any of the highly technical evidence. The submission says:


“The DJ has fundamentally misunderstood the evidence on this issue. It is flatly incorrect that ‘The defence has not disputed that … important forensic evidence was found by army investigators on the FTP user account in [Manning’s] name’. (Judgment, CB/2, §381). Manning never accessed (and – the point is – could never access) any ‘FTP user’ account, because the passcode hash was impossible to decrypt. Mr Assange is not ‘offer[ing] an alternative explanation’ for ‘these facts’ (Judgment CB/2, §381); they did not occur.”

The U.S. knows all this and deceptively argued their case anyway. And Baraitser, the magistrate at Assange’s hearing, dutifully disregarded the forensic evidence and decided in the U.S. favor on the matter of alleged computer intrusion.

Alleged Harm to US & Its Sources

U.S. Brigadier General Robert Carr, who led the post-Wikileaks investigation into the disclosures’ impact, admitted under oath at the Manning court martial that no one was killed as a result of the WikiLeaks revelations.

In her memoir, README.txt, Manning describes on page 217 that Carr had attempted to mislead the court in a way that would further incriminate her, and indeed WikiLeaks, but failed.

“He tried to connect my disclosures to the death of an Afghani at the hands of the Taliban, but the man who died hadn’t appeared at all in the diplomatic cables, and [Judge Denise] Lind ordered this part of the statement removed from the testimony,” Manning wrote.

Manning continued:


“Another witness, Commander Youssef Aboul-Enein, part of the Pentagon’s Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism and a military advisor to the George W. Bush administration during the initial invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, argued that the SIGACTs’ evidence that the United States had killed civilians would help America’s enemies with fundraising and recruitment.

He could point to just two instances in which the terrorist organization had used anything obtained from the SIGACTs, though: once in 2010, in its English- language recruitment magazine Inspire, and in a video the following year by Adam Gadahn, an American who’d joined al-Qaeda and become a spokesperson.

On cross-examination, Aboul-Enein said that while the SIGACTs might reveal a pattern of U.S. military activity, al-Qaeda hadn’t had any tactical victories as a result of my disclosures. Once again, the narrative was set forth: nothing bad has actually happened—but it might have. I wanted to scream.” [Emphasis added]

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg, who has been repeatedly accused of using unethical tactics in pursuit of convictions, added no victims to Carr’s empty claim of deaths caused by WikiLeaks in his affidavit to Baraitser’s court.

And yet the U.S. in the courtroom, the media, and in the political arena continues to pursue this grand and bogus claim of harm done to the U.S. and its sources.

For instance, just last summer, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in Australia, in response to Australian efforts to end Assange’s prosecution:

“What our Department of Justice has already said repeatedly, publicly, is this: Mr Assange was charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country.


Blinken with Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong in Brisbane, Australia, July 2023. (State Department/Chuck Kennedy/Public domain)

The actions that he is alleged to have committed risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries, and put named human sources at grave risk of physical harm, grave risk of detention.”

Manning concluded:


“People on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan could see the locations of U.S. military bases and convoy routes. They didn’t need to look at documents online. Yet the government was so afraid of these learning true information about how our conduct abroad stood in stark contrast to our own stated principles.”

Much of what the U.S. does militarily backfires, as do their poorly constructed lies and cover-ups. Ironically it is through the vengeful persecution of Manning and Assange that the world has become more aware of the discrepancy between the U.S. ’s conduct abroad and its own stated policy.

Despite being fully aware of the government’s own testimony in the Manning trial, the U.S. pushed these falsehoods before Baraitser, who accepted them without question.

Evidence Withheld to Imply Dual Criminality

Extradition is only possible when an act is a crime in both the extraditing and requesting nation. The U.S. argued in court that Assange violated both the U.S. Espionage Act and the U.K. Official Secrets Act by publishing classified information.

However, the U.S. withheld evidence showing that WikiLeaks had published un-redacted diplomatic cables only after they were made public by “hundreds of websites,” including by cryptome.org and The Pirate Bay.

While unauthorized possession and dissemination of defense information is classified as a crime in the Espionage Act, under the Official Secrets Act it is not an offense to republish classified information if it’s already in the public domain, and if publication won’t cause serious harm.

An example of this was the Spycatcher case, defended and won in the Australian High Court by none other than Malcolm Turnbull, who later became the country’s 29th prime minister.

In a 2011 speech at the Sydney University Law School, Turnbull highlighted the arguments that won him the case for former British spy Peter Wright, author of the book Spycatcher. Turnbull was able to get the court to lift the MI5 injunction on the publication of the book. One of Turnbull’s arguments was that “there was absolutely nothing in the book which had not been published somewhere else.”

Malcolm Turnbull in June 2017. 

(Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0)

“We also argued that the book revealed the commission of crimes and other wrongdoing,” he said. Turnbull said the British government’s case “was plainly untenable as an effort to enforce the public law of another country in an Australian court.”

[Listen to Malcolm Turnbull’s speech:’Reflections on Wikileaks, Spycatcher and Freedom of the Press’]

Since the un-redacted Diplomatic Cables had been published elsewhere before WikiLeaks published it, the Official Secrets Act thus could not apply and nor should dual criminality, a conclusion that alone would doom the U.S. extradition case.

The ICC & Assange

Assange’s presence is required at the ICC to testify against U.S. military and C.I.A. torture, his lawyers said. The disproportionate sentence he is facing, beyond the term of his natural life, would prevent him from ever doing so.

His lawyer’s 150-page submission says:


“The unchallenged evidence before the DJ was that the ICC’s investigation into these crimes was founded on inter alia the WikiLeaks disclosures (Lewis 5, EB/35, §9).41 WikiLeaks’ materials, and Mr Assange, would be ‘essential’ to any ICC prosecution (Lewis 5, EB/35 §16/ EB/43 Tr 14.9.20, p14 – unchallenged).


v) Section 11 (Ground of appeal 6) with the result that Mr Assange is placed permanently out of reach of the ICC or any other judicial body that might investigate/prosecute the crimes he exposed, the U.S. have ratcheted the counts in the indictment in order to expose Mr Assange to a Guideline sentence in excess of his remaining natural life.”

Physical & Psychological Ailments

There are two other matters not mentioned in the 150-page submission that could figure at the hearing this week. One pertains to Assange’s health.

A distinction was drawn by Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett, during the October 2021 High Court hearing, between Assange’s health condition and that of the alleged hacker Lauri Love, whom he refused to extradite to the U.S. on health grounds.

Burnett asserted that Love was a very different case from Assange because in addition to a similar mental health condition, he was also suffering from a physical condition, namely eczema.

Assange had already been diagnosed with a number of physical ailments, including osteoporosis. But while observing that very hearing with BurnettAssange suffered what was later diagnosed as a mini-stroke, which medical authorities say is often followed by a major stroke.

There has been no review of Burnett’s distinction, even though Assange is now suffering from a life-threatening physical condition.

The magistrate blocked Assange’s extradition because of mental health conditions making him prone to suicide. The U.S. at the Burnett hearing was trying to overturn that decision, not by challenging his state of health (though the U.S. had earlier tried to frame him as a malingerer) but by offering “assurances” that he would be well-taken care of in the U.S.

So the High Court in October 2021 was considering these U.S. assurances at the very moment when he had the stroke. Treatment for a stroke is time-sensitive (within three hours).

Lawyer Yancey Ellis testified for the defense that there are no doctors on staff at Alexandria Detention Center, where Assange would be held possibly for years during his trial.

There is no proper medical facility there, and since prisoners are isolated for 22 hours a day there is little chance he would survive another stroke. The U.S. assurances, based solely Assange’s mental health condition, are clearly outdated.

Zakrzewski Abuse

All of these deceptions have been linked to what the defense refers to as “The Zakrzewski Abuse.” The term comes from the 2013 judgement in Zakrzewski (Respondent) v The Regional Court in Lodz, Poland (Appellant), where it is articulated that the facts of a case delivered with an extradition request must be “proper, fair and accurate.”

In the case of Zakrzewski, the state’s appeal was refused because the facts were not “properly, fairly or accurately delivered.”

The 150-page defense submission to the High Court said:


“In sum, (a) the U.S. had been caught lying about the evidence underlying its passcode hash conspiracy allegation. [Forensic examiner] Mr Eller’s evidence was not ‘an alternative narrative’ (Judgment§380) to that allegation; it brought to the DJ’s [District Judge Baraitser’s] attention the content of the U.S. Government’s own (concealed) evidence. That ought to have been met by a stay of proceedings for abuse.

(b) But the U.S. retreated from its allegations before the DJ’s ruling was due. That ought to have been the end of the matter.

c) Yet the U.S. then sought to resuscitate its lying allegations with absurd alternative suggestions and speculation. Clinging to a misleading allegation in this way ought to have left the DJ with no choice but to invoke Zakrzewski. Instead, the DJ wrongly regarded that as raising ‘a matter for trial.”

A Plea for Decency

In their submission, Assange’s lawyers also made this plea to common sense and decency, very little of which the British courts have so far exhibited:


“Julian Assange’s work, dedicated to ensuring public accountability by exposing global human rights abuses, and facilitating the investigation of and prosecution for state criminality, has contributed to the saving of countless lives, stopped human rights abuses in their tracks, and brought down despotic and autocratic regimes.

Those who expose grave state criminality, defenders of fundamental human rights, are, and always have been, vulnerable to acts of political retaliation and persecution from the regimes whose criminality they expose. Julian Assange is no exception.”



Cathy Vogan is a filmmaker, exhibited artist and executive producer of CN Live! She has covered the Assange court case for Consortium News since 2020.

Why are children still playing tackle football, despite brain risks?

Families are often left to balance the health risks against the opportunities football provides.

By Torrence Banks, Andrew Chodes /

Shirley Povich Center For Sports Journalism and The Howard Center For Investigative Journalism •

Univ. of Maryland/Freddy Wolfe via AP

This photo provided by the University of Maryland shows a Maryland Heat youth tackle football team practicing in Fort Washington, Md., Nov. 9, 2023. Some parents are opting to enroll their children in leagues that play flag football, which limits contact on the field. But youth tackle leagues remain popular in many parts of the country.


Tackle football offers children as young as 5 the chance to make friends, learn teamwork, maybe attract a college scholarship. Growing research shows it also can cause injuries that damage developing brains.

That leaves families to balance the risks against the opportunities.

Many are opting out. Participation in youth tackle football has been declining for years. But especially in communities of color, tackle football’s lure remains strong and the balance tips toward opportunity, a four-month investigation by The Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism and the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism at the University of Maryland has found.

A nationwide Ipsos poll commissioned by the centers found:

— Black parents are more likely than white parents, by substantial margins, to believe that youth tackle football could lead to a college scholarship or an NFL career. Hispanic parents are also far more likely than white parents to see college scholarships and pro careers as a potential benefit of youth football.

— Nearly one in four Black parents said the appropriate age for children to start playing tackle football is 9 years old or younger. Only 14% of white parents said children should start at age 9 or younger.

Terrence Byrd is the president of Maryland Heat, a youth tackle program that suits up primarily Black boys as young as 5 in pads and helmets. He said he knows injuries are possible in tackle football and his coaches train children to play as safely as possible. But he believes the opportunities outweigh the risks.

“I would confidently say that we are changing lives,” Byrd said.

Medical studies over the years have linked head trauma suffered by NFL players to a brain condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), with symptoms including dementia, depression, anxiety and aggression.

Last year, the Boston University CTE Center released a study that said the developing brains of children are at risk for damage from repeated impacts to the head and brain that have been associated with impulsive behaviors and cognitive problems.

The study notes that children who start playing tackle football at an early age or participate in the sport for more than 11 years run an increased risk of such impairment.

A child’s brain and head are disproportionately outsized to the rest of the body, especially from ages 5 to 8, and a child’s weak neck cannot brace for a hit – even a hit from falling to the ground – the way an adult’s can, said Dr. Robert Cantu, clinical diagnostics and therapeutics leader of the BU CTE Center and the author of more than 540 scientific articles on neurology and sports medicine.

Not all researchers agree. A recent study of 52 high school athletes found head impacts were not consistently associated with changes in cognitive, emotional or behavioral symptoms. Danielle Ransom, a pediatric neuropsychologist at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida, who worked on the study, said while head trauma contributes to CTE, other factors — including genetics and substance abuse — should also be considered.


SOCCERMAY 16, 2023
CTE Cases in Soccer Players Raise Fresh Questions About Safety of Heading the Ball

CHRONIC TRAUMATIC ENCEPHALOPATHYJUN 30, 2022
What is CTE and How Often Are Soccer Players Diagnosed With It?

At the University of Maryland, head football coach Michael Locksley said he feels the data is inconclusive and, “from a medical standpoint, the game has been under attack.”

“When you do the research, you can find the answers you want,” he said in an interview. However, “It’s up to us as coaches and football people to figure out how to play it as safely as we can.”

Locksley’s history with football is complicated. In 2017, his son Meiko, who began playing tackle football at 7, died in a shooting at age 25. His parents donated his brain for examination at the Boston University CTE Center. The doctors found that Meiko Locksley showed signs of CTE.

Some parents are opting to enroll their children in leagues that play flag football, which limits contact on the field. Others believe players should not be introduced to tackle football until high school.

But youth tackle leagues remain popular in many parts of the country. “Right now, we have our largest enrollment in tackle football that we’ve had since 2014,’’ said Todd Casey, commissioner of Vienna (Virginia) Youth, Inc. Football.

In Fort Washington, Md., Stephanie Rogers was watching her son and his Maryland Heat teammates run through plays last fall. She said the game provides social benefits and opportunities for a better education.

“We have private high schools trying to get these kids in their doors,” she said.

DeMatha Catholic High School in Hyattsville, Md., is one of the private schools that recruits Maryland Heat players. Last year, 19 of DeMatha’s football players signed with Division I and II college football programs.

“You’re now changing the education paradigm for young men” by giving the players experience that can attract scholarships, said Byrd, the Heat’s coach.

Byrd said the risk of injuries exists in all sports. And many of the children in his league face dangers off the field, “whether it’s at risk for taking a shot to the head at a football game, or whether it’s at risk to taking, you know, a shot on the streets.”

Mac Stephens, a former NFL player and coach at Cleveland Heights High School in Ohio, said if Cleveland Heights didn’t offer tackle football before high school, parents would find leagues in other towns for their kids to play in.

Parents believe that “I have to get my son on track to get a college scholarship someday,” he said.

Former NFL player Solomon Brannan acknowledged money motivates parents who are hoping for scholarships. But he said parents would be better off helping their children learn. “You can’t depend on sports,’’ said Brannan, who played in the first Super Bowl. “If you’ve to it upstairs in your head, you’re going to be successful no matter what.’’

At the University of Maryland, Michael Locksley said his wife, Kia, now believes children should not play tackle football before 14. But he disagrees.

Football, he said, “is the closest sport to mimicking life. In football, you get knocked down … and you’ve got to get back up and you’ve got to face it the next play.”

If his grandchildren want to play the game, Locksley said, he will support them.

Torrence Banks and Andrew Chodes reported for the Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism and the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism in the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland.
Copyright AP - Associated Press