Author: admin

Nina Cross Writes “Britain’s Unconvicted Prisoner: Keeping Assange on Lockdown for Neocons in Washington”

On, 3rd October 2019, Nina Cross writes

This article is a second piece focusing on Belmarsh prison, where the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, continues to be arbitrarily detained by the British government.  The first part showed how Belmarsh prison has been systematically denying Assange access to justice by restricting all the means through which he could prepare his defence; access to and possession of legal documents, talking to his US lawyers, restricted meetings with his UK lawyers, and access to a laptop as a basic means to prepare his defence.  These restrictions have been imposed in contradiction to all legislation and standards regarding the rights of the prisoner. This piece looks at the weaponizing of Category A prison security and the use of prison healthcare isolation as part of a program of the state-sponsored abuse of a journalist imprisoned for releasing prima facie evidence of US war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The decision on 13th September by Judge Vanessa Baraitser in a ‘technical hearing‘ at Westminster Magistrate’s Court, means that although Assange has been given parole half way through what experts believe was a disproportionate 50 week sentence for skipping police bail in 2012, he will still be kept in prison while he is fighting extradition to the US – a process which could take many years. Baraitser justified her decision as follows:

“In my view I have substantial  ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again”

She described his status now as:

“...from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition”

According to the British judiciary, Assange was initially apprehended and sentenced to prison because he had ‘skipped bail’ by seeking refuge for political asylum in London’s Ecuadorian embassy. Despite the fact the original investigation in which he was wanted for questioning (and complied) by Swedish authorities had been dropped, the British courts still treated Assange as a serious criminal and sentenced him as such. The narratives in Baraitser’s statement, the injustices arising from them and the proceedings around this hearing have all been highlighted and roundly condemned. What’s more, despite the change to Assange’s prisoner status, he has so far been kept in Belmarsh.

These inconsistencies should raise serious doubts as to whether the British justice system is operating objectively and according to domestic and international legal norms.

Read Full article 21st Century Wire

‘Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group’ formally established

On 23 October 2019 Andrew Wilkie writes:

On behalf of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group I am pleased to announce that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives formally approved the Group yesterday.

At this early stage the Group already has 11 members including LNP, National, ALP and crossbench members and is co-chaired by the member for Dawson, George Christensen MP, and myself.

The Group will provide a forum for the members to meet together and with stakeholders and discuss matters relating to Julian Assange returning to Australia.

Mainstream Media Fights for Own Freedom, But Not for Assange’s

2/11/2019  PAUL GREGOIRE writes

Major Australian mainstream media outlets joined forces a fortnight ago to launched the Right to Know campaign. It aims to see public interest journalism decriminalised, and safeguards for whistleblowers enhanced.

This unprecedented display of unity has seen The Guardian, the ABC, Nine, News Corp, SBS and the MEAA join forces in calling on the government to enact reforms. And this is rather significant, considering some of these organisations have been much criticised for towing the party line.

The Right to Know has six demands: exceptions so journalists can’t be prosecuted under national security laws, freedom of information reform, defamation law reform, a narrowing of the information classified as secret, protections for whistleblowers and the right to contest warrants.

Of course, the campaign was sparked by the June AFP press raids, which saw agents rifle through the house of a News Corp journalist, as well as the offices of the national broadcaster, in what was understood by many to be a warning to the media and whistleblowers to keep quiet.

However, a glaring campaign omission is the case of an Australian publisher who’s currently being remanded in the UK over charges that apply in the US, which relate precisely to public interest journalism. Yet, the Australian media has all but forgotten their colleague, Julian Assange.

Silenced by association

“The Right to Know campaign drives to the heart of the matter more than many journalists realise,” remarked Ian Rose, a member of the Support Assange and Wikileaks Coalition.

“While on the one hand, they’re right to finally be calling out the creeping incursions and restrictions into media freedoms,” he told Sydney Criminal Lawyers. “On the other, they don’t have the inner fortitude to stand up for Assange.”

Read full article at Sydney Criminal Lawyers

And also covered in the The Big Smoke

US Federal Cases Involving Unauthorized Disclosures to the News Media, 1778 to the Present

The Reporters Committee for Freedom Of The Press reviews Federal Cases Involving Unauthorized Disclosures to the News Media, 1778 to the Present

Read Whole Freedom of Press Document. The section of Julian Assange is shown below

Case: Julian Assange
 
Obama (case explored and dropped)
Trump (case reopened and indictment pursued)

Charges:

On April 11, 2019, the Justice Department released a previously sealed indictment charging Assange with one count of conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Assange was charged with one count of “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,” in violation of the following provisions: 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 (the general federal conspiracy statute); 1030(a)(1) (hacking to access classified information); 1030(a)(2) (unauthorized access to government computer); 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii) (sentence enhancement to five years as offense committed in furtherance of Espionage Act violation by Manning).

On May 23, 2019, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a superseding indictment against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, adding 17 counts under the Espionage Act.

Under the superseding indictment, Assange was charged with violating, or conspiring to violate, the following statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 2; § 793 (b)-(g)

Summary:

There is an ongoing debate among academics and commentators as to whether Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be considered a “journalist.”  That debate is, however, legally irrelevant to the First Amendment issues in the case, and the Assange case is a national security media “leaks” case under the methodology of this survey. Indeed, it’s the first time the government has ever secured an indictment based in part on the act of “pure publication” (i.e., where solicitation or receipt of the information isn’t part of the criminal act). Accordingly, it is included here. When counting the post-2009 leak cases, Reporters Committee lists the Assange case separately, as it does not involve the prosecution of a journalistic source (Manning’s court martial is discussed above). Accordingly, we characterize the cases since 2009 as such: 17 journalistic source prosecutions, one prosecution of a Navy linguist for providing classified documents to a public archive and the 2019 leaks prosecution of Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks.

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who founded the website WikiLeaks in 2006. Per its current website, WikiLeaks “specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption.” In April 2010, the website garnered international attention when it posted a video it dubbed “Collateral Murder” that appeared to show a U.S. military helicopter firing upon and ultimately killing several Iraqi civilians and two journalists in 2007.

Later that year, Wikileaks began posting hundreds of thousands of classified documents on its website relating to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Assange shared these documents with Le Monde, El País, Der Spiegel, the Guardian and the New York Times. These outlets separately edited and published revelations from the documents.

In May 2010, Chelsea Manning, a 25-year old soldier and intelligence analyst, was arrested and charged with passing to WikiLeaks the “Collateral Murder” footage, as well as the 250,000 State Department cables and 470,000 Iraq and Afghanistan battlefield logs. Manning was also accused of sharing filesabout Guantanamo Bay detainees. In July 2013, Manning wassentenced to 35 years in prison after being found guilty of 20 counts (six of which were under the Espionage Act), although she was acquitted of “aiding the enemy.”  In January 2017,  President Obama commuted Manning’s sentence to time served plus 120 days. 

Officials in the Obama administration debated over whether to prosecute Assange in connection with the Manning disclosures. The Obama Justice Department ultimately determined that bringing charges against Assange could threaten press freedom. Utimately. in 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia to revisit the case against Assange.

On April 11, 2019, British police arrested Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, in part based on an extradition request by the United States. The Justice Department then released a previously sealed indictment that charged Assange with one count of conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”).

As explained in a Reporters Committee analysis, the indictment included an allegation that Assange agreed to help Chelsea Manning “crack” a password to a Defense Department computer. The indictment stated that

As explained in a Reporters Committee analysis, the indictment included an allegation that Assange agreed to help Chelsea Manning “crack” a password to a Defense Department computer. The indictment stated that Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password; that Manning sent Assange a “hash” value for someone else’s password; and that Assange said that he tried to crack the password and asked for more information about the password.  The Reporters Committee noted at the time that conspiring to crack a password to a Pentagon computer generally is not something that a newsroom lawyer would counsel a reporter to do.   However, any prosecution under the CFAA, which imposes liability for accessing  a computer “without authorization,” still could raise concerns. Indeed, in unrelated cases, the courts and the government have interpreted the CFAA to include conduct such as consensual password sharing or web scraping by data journalists.

Although the initial CFAA count was relatively limited, on May 23, the Justice Department filed a federal grand jury superseding indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia against Assange.785 The indictment added 17 counts under the Espionage Act to the one count of conspiring to violate the CFAA.

As the Reporters Committee noted in a subsequent analysis, this is only the third time the U.S. government has brought Espionage Act charges against a non-government third party. Counts two through 14 in the indictment stem from allegations that Assange coordinated with Manning on the receipt and publication of classified documents. Assange allegedly violated several parts of § 793 of the Espionage Act along with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. Per these laws, someone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures, or “willfully causes,” an offense to be committed can be punished as the principal offender.

Further, counts 15 through 17 charge that Assange directly violated the Espionage Act when he “communicated” reports from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and the State Department cables, “by publishing [the documents] on the internet.” As the Reporters Committee observed, “This is the first time the Justice Department has ever successfully obtained an indictment from a grand jury with Espionage Act charges based exclusively on the act of publication. . .” The analysis noted that “pure publication” is “distinct from either conspiring with a source or aiding and abetting the illegal acquisition of classified information.”

The superseding indictment prompted widespread concern among members of the news media and press freedom advocates. The  Reporters Committee called the theory of the case a “dire threat” to newsgathering and the “pure publication” counts a “direct threat to news reporting.”

Finally, the extradition element of this case also could raise concerns. In June 2019, Sajid Javid, the United Kingdom’s home secretary, approved the United States’ extradition request. Though the matter is now before a London court, if extradited, Assange would be brought to the United States to face criminal charges.

 The U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty, however, does not permit extradition for “political offenses.” Had the United States charged Assange with an “ordinary crime” like theft or straight hacking, were it found to not be politically motivated, such an offense would likely qualify for extradition. Spying and treason are widely understood, however, to constitute “political offenses.” The concern here is that other countries could overlook a clear exception for “political offenses,” and pressure the United States to extradite political dissidents or journalists who have been critical of hostile regimes. Such a practice would severely threaten press freedom around the world.

‘Will you come and help?’ Father of Julian Assange on campaign to free his son”

Saturday 9th November 2019, Michael Clifford writes

At 80, John Shipton thought he would be enjoying his retirement, he tells Michael Clifford. Instead, he is touring European capitals campaigning for his son, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

A parent’s work is never done. John Shipton entering his ninth decade. He’d like to kick back, maybe learn a few recipes, stroll at a leisurely pace towards the declining years.

But his son needs him. His son’s health is in serious danger and his future looks dark, with the prospect of spending decades, if not the remainder of his life, in prison.

Read more about John Shipton’s European tour working with groups actively seeking for Julian Assange’s freedom in the Irish Examiner

Pamela Anderson applauds the “Bring Assange Home Parliamentary Group”

Urgent Appeal to Bring Julian Assange Home to:
Hon. Scott Morrison Prime Minister of Australia

Senator the Hon. Marise Payne, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Women

All Parliamentarians of the Government of Australia,

I am pleased to be advised that Australian parliamentarians from across the political spectrum are now choosing to stand and work together to bring Julian Assange home to Australia.

The establishment of the “Bring Assange Home Parliamentary Group” is a great leap forward in upholding the human rights of this Australian citizen and journalist.

Read Full Post Pamella Anderson’s Web Site

More information on the “Bring Assange Home Parliamentary Group”

Eleven Australian MPs form group to advocate for Julian Assange’s return to Australia

Jonathan Cook blogs “Abuses show Assange case was never about law”

On 27 May 2019 Jonathan Cook writes:

So here is a far from complete list – aided by the research of John Pilger, Craig Murray and Caitlin Johnstone, and the original investigative work of Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi – of some of the most glaring anomalies in Assange’s legal troubles. There are 17 of them below. Each might conceivably have been possible in isolation. But taken together they are overwhelming evidence that this was never about enforcing the law. From the start, Assange faced political persecution.

No judicial authority

* In late summer 2010, neither of the two Swedish women alleged Assange had raped them when they made police statements. They went together to the police station after finding out that Assange had slept with them both only a matter of days apart and wanted him to be forced to take an HIV test. One of the women, SW, refused to sign the police statement when she understood the police were seeking an indictment for rape. The investigation relating to the second woman, AA, was for a sexual assault specific to Sweden. A condom produced by AA that she says Assange tore during sex was found to have neither her nor Assange’s DNA on it, undermining her credibility.

* Sweden’s strict laws protecting suspects during preliminary investigations were violated by the Swedish media to smear Assange as a rapist. In response, the Stockholm chief prosecutor, Eva Finne, took charge and quickly cancelled the investigation: “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” She later concluded: “There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.”

* The case was revived by another prosecutor, Marianne Ny, although she never questioned Assange. He spent more than a month in Sweden waiting for developments in the case, but was then told by prosecutors he was free to leave for the UK, suggesting that suspicions against him were not considered serious enough to detain him in Sweden. Nonetheless, shortly afterwards, Interpol issued a Red Notice for Assange, usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals.

* The UK supreme court approved an extradition to Sweden based on a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) in 2010, despite the fact that it was not signed by a “judicial authority”, only by the Swedish prosecutor. The terms of the EAW agreement were amended by the UK government shortly after the Assange ruling to make sure such an abuse of legal procedure never occurred again.

* The UK supreme court also approved Assange’s extradition even though Swedish authorities refused to offer an assurance that he would not be extradited onwards to the US, where a grand jury was already formulating draconian charges in secret against him under the Espionage Act. The US similarly refused to give an assurance they would not seek his extradition.

* In these circumstances, Assange fled to Ecuador’s embassy in London in summer 2012, seeking political asylum. That was after the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, blocked Assange’s chance to appealto the European Court of Human Rights.

* Australia not only refused Assange, a citizen, any help during his long ordeal, but prime minister Julia Gillard even threatened to strip Assange of his citizenship, until it was pointed out that it would be illegal for Australia to do so.

* Britain, meanwhile, not only surrounded the embassy with a large police force at great public expense, but William Hague, the foreign secretary, threatened to tear up the Vienna Convention, violating Ecuador’s diplomatic territory by sending UK police into the embassy to arrest Assange.

Six years of heel-dragging

* Although Assange was still formally under investigation, Ny refused to come to London to interview him, despite similar interviews having been conducted by Swedish prosecutors 44 times in the UK in the period Assange was denied that right.

* In 2016, international legal experts in the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which adjudicates on whether governments have complied with human rights obligations, ruled that Assange was being detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. Although both countries participated in the UN investigation, and had given the tribunal vocal support when other countries were found guilty of human rights violations, they steadfastly ignored its ruling in favour of Assange. UK Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond flat-out lied in claiming the UN panel was “made up of lay people and not lawyers”. The tribunal comprises leading experts in international law, as is clear from their CVs. Nonetheless, the lie became Britain’s official response to the UN ruling. The British media performed no better. A Guardian editorial dismissed the verdict as nothing more than a “publicity stunt”.

* Ny finally relented on Assange being interviewed in November 2016, with a Swedish prosecutor sent to London after six years of heel-dragging. However, Assange’s Swedish lawyer was barred from being present. Ny was due to be questioned about the interview by a Stockholm judge in May 2017 but closed the investigation against Assange the very same day.

* In fact, correspondence that was later revealed under a Freedom of Information request – pursued by Italian investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi – shows that the British prosecution service, the CPS, pressured the Swedish prosecutor not to come to the London to interview Assange through 2010 and 2011, thereby creating the embassy standoff.

* Also, the CPS destroyed most of the incriminating correspondence to circumvent the FoI requests. The emails that surfaced did so only because some copies were accidentally overlooked in the destruction spree. Those emails were bad enough. They show that in 2013 Sweden had wanted to drop the case against Assange but had come under strong British pressure to continue the pretence of seeking his extradition. There are emails from the CPS stating, “Don’t you dare” drop the case, and most revealing of all: “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”

* It also emerged that Marianne Ny had deleted an email she received from the FBI.

* Despite his interview with a Swedish prosecutor taking place in late 2016, Assange was not subseqently charged in absentia – an optionSweden could have pursued if it had thought the evidence was strong enough.

* After Sweden dropped the investigation against Assange, his lawyers sought last year to get the British arrest warrant for his bail breach dropped. They had good grounds, both because the allegations over which he’d been bailed had been dropped by Sweden and because he had justifiable cause to seek asylum given the apparent US interest in extraditing him and locking him up for life for political crimes. His lawyers could also argue convincingly that the time he had spent in confinement, first under house arrest and then in the embassy, was more than equivalent to time, if any, that needed to be served for the bail infringement. However, the judge, Emma Arbuthnot, rejected the Assange team’s strong legal arguments. She was hardly a dispassionate observer. In fact, in a properly ordered world she should have recused herself, given that she is the wife of a government whip, who was also a business partner of a former head of MI6, Britain’s version of the CIA.

* Assange’s legal rights were again flagrantly violated last week, with the collusion of Ecuador and the UK, when US prosecutors were allowed to seize Assange’s personal items from the embassy while his lawyers and UN officials were denied the right to be present.

Read full article Jonathan Cook Blog

David Kravets writes “UK spent $15.6 million guarding embassy housing Julian Assange”

2 July 2015

Scotland Yard has spent at least $15.6 million guarding the Ecuadorean embassy in London where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been holed up for nearly 1,000 days.

“It is embarrassing to see the UK government spending more on surveillance and detaining an uncharged political refugee than on its investigation into the Iraq war, which killed hundreds of thousands,” Kristinn Hrafnsson, a WikiLeaks spokesman, said.

Full article at Ars Technica