UK Court Gives Biden Chance to Dodge Assange Appeal by “Assuring” His Rights

On the 29th March 2024, Marjorie Cohn writes in truthout WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is closer than ever to being extradited to the United States for trial on 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion over WikiLeaks’s 2010-2011 revelation of evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. He … Continue reading “UK Court Gives Biden Chance to Dodge Assange Appeal by “Assuring” His Rights”

On the 29th March 2024, Marjorie Cohn writes in truthout

WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is closer than ever to being extradited to the United States for trial on 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion over WikiLeaks’s 2010-2011 revelation of evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. He faces 175 years in prison.

“This is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you, they will put you in prison and they will try to kill you,” said Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, of his prosecution.

On March 26, the United Kingdom Divisional Court denied Assange the opportunity to make most of his appellate arguments. But the two-judge panel of Justice Jeremy Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharp left open the possibility that Assange could appeal on three grounds. They found that Assange “has a real prospect of success” on the following issues: If extradited to the U.S., he will be denied the right to freedom of expression, will suffer discrimination because he’s not a U.S. citizen and could be sentenced to death.

Rather than simply allowing Assange to argue the three issues on appeal, however, the panel gave the Biden administration an out. If the U.S. provides the court with “satisfactory assurances” that Assange won’t be denied any of these rights, his extradition to the U.S. can proceed without an appeals hearing.

Stella Assange called the decision “astounding,” adding, “The court’s recognized that Julian has been exposed to flagrant denial of his freedom of expression rights, that he is being discriminated against on the basis of his nationality and that he remains exposed to the death penalty.” 

At an earlier stage in this case, the U.S. gave the U.K. High Court “assurances” that Assange would be treated humanely if extradited. That caused the court to reverse the magistrate judge’s denial of extradition (which was based on the likelihood of suicide if Assange is held in harsh U.S. confinement). The High Court accepted those assurances at face value in spite of the U.S.’s history of reneging on similar assurances.

The current ruling, however, requires U.S. assurances to be “satisfactory” and the defense will have an opportunity to challenge them at a hearing.

“Mr. Assange will not, therefore, be extradited immediately,” the panel wrote, implying that if they had denied his appeal outright, the U.K. authorities would put him on a plane to the U.S. forthwith. They gave the U.S. three weeks to come forward with satisfactory assurances.

If the U.S. fails to provide any assurances, Assange will be granted a hearing on the three grounds. If the U.S. does give assurances, a hearing to decide whether they are satisfactory will occur on May 20.

“The Biden administration should not offer assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought,” Stella Assange said.

These are the grounds the High Court will review if the U.S. fails to provide “satisfactory assurances”:

1. Extradition Would Violate Freedom of Expression Guaranteed by Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights 

Assange would argue at trial that his actions were protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “He contends that if he is given First Amendment rights, the prosecution will be stopped. The First Amendment is therefore of central importance to his defence,” the panel concluded.

The First Amendment provides “strong protection” to freedom of expression, similar to that provided by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the panel noted. Article 10 (1) of the convention says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Gordon Kromberg, assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Assange’s trial would be held, said the prosecution might argue at trial that “foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment,” the panel noted. In 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo said that Assange “has no First Amendment freedoms” because “he is not a U.S. citizen.”

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2020 case of Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International that “it is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside United States territory do not possess rights under the US Constitution.”

The panel wrote that if Assange “is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment, then it is arguable that his extradition would be incompatible with article 10 of the Convention.”

But even if the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors give “significant assurances” that Assange’s First Amendment rights would be protected, that is no guarantee. Prosecutors are part of the executive branch, which cannot bind the judicial branch due to the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

“The ruling reveals that the High Court does not understand the American system of government,” Stephen Rohde, who practiced First Amendment law for almost 50 years and writes extensively about the Assange case, told Truthout. “It only has before it the executive branch of the U.S. government. Whatever ‘significant assurances’ the Department of Justice may give the High Court, they are not binding on the judicial branch.”

Moreover, Rohde said, “The High Court is obligated to uphold Assange’s rights to ‘freedom of expression’ under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects Assange even if the U.S. courts refuse to do so. The only way to do that is to deny extradition.”

2. The U.K. Extradition Act Forbids Discrimination Based on Nationality

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who would be tried in the U.S. if the Biden administration’s pursuit of extradition is successful.

Section 81(b) of the U.K. Extradition Act says that extradition is barred for an individual who “might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his … nationality.”

Due to the centrality of the First Amendment to Assange’s defense, the panel noted, “If he is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment because of his status as a foreign national, he will thereby be prejudiced (potentially very greatly prejudiced) by reason of his nationality.”

3. Extradition Is Barred by Inadequate Death Penalty Protection Required by the Extradition Act

Section 94 of the U.K. Extradition Act says, “The Secretary of State must not order a person’s extradition … if he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death for the offence” in the receiving state. That limitation does not apply if a written “assurance” that is “adequate” says “that a sentence of death- (a) will not be imposed, or (b) will not be carried out (if imposed).”

None of the charges that Assange is currently facing carry the death penalty. But if extradited to the U.S., he could be charged with aiding and abetting treason or espionage, both of which are capital offenses.

Ben Watson KC, secretary of state for the Home Department, admitted that:

a.) The facts alleged against [Assange] could sustain a charge of aiding or abetting treason, or espionage.

b.) If [Assange] is extradited, there is nothing to prevent a charge of aiding or abetting treason, or a charge of espionage, from being added to the indictment.

c.) The death penalty is available on conviction for aiding or abetting treason, or espionage.

d.) There are no arrangements in place to prevent the imposition of the death penalty.

e.) The existing assurance does not explicitly prevent the imposition of the death.

The panel noted that when former President Donald Trump was asked about WikiLeaks publishing the leaked documents, he said, “I think it was disgraceful…. I think there should be like a death penalty or something.” If Trump is reelected, he may seek to ensure that his Justice Department adds capital charges to the indictment.

In concluding that Assange could raise this issue on appeal subject to “significant assurances,” the panel cited “the potential, on the facts, for capital charges to be laid; the calls for the imposition of the death penalty by leading politicians and other public figures; the fact that the Treaty does not preclude extradition for death penalty charges, and the fact that the existing assurance does not explicitly cover the death penalty.”

Appeal Grounds Denied by Panel

Remaining grounds for appeal that Assange requested were denied by the panel. They include prosecution for a political offense, prosecution based on political opinion; violation of right to a fair trial; violation of right to life; and violation of right to be free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, since no publisher has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing government secrets, Assange could not have known it was a crime.

The panel also ruled that Assange could not introduce new evidence adduced after the magistrate judge’s ruling. This includes a Yahoo News report detailing the CIA’s plan to kidnap and kill Assange when he was living under a grant of asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

If the U.S. offers “significant assurances” and extradition is ordered, Assange could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and raise these additional issues as well.

Meanwhile, there is a possibility that instead of filing “assurances,” the Biden administration will opt to avoid the political pitfalls of Assange’s extradition to the U.S. and offer a plea bargain to end the case.

Read original article and please donate in truthout

Labor Urged to Act to Prevent Julian Assange Extradition

On the 26th May Amy Fallon writes in The Saturday Paper The legal case against Julian Assange is a game of luck and whim. Any day now, the British home secretary, Priti Patel, is expected to rubber stamp his extradition to the United States. What will happen to him there is uncertain. The Westminster Magistrates’ … Continue reading “Labor Urged to Act to Prevent Julian Assange Extradition”

On the 26th May Amy Fallon writes in The Saturday Paper

The legal case against Julian Assange is a game of luck and whim. Any day now, the British home secretary, Priti Patel, is expected to rubber stamp his extradition to the United States. What will happen to him there is uncertain.

The Westminster Magistrates’ Court formally approved his extradition on April 20 and Patel has until May 31 to announce whether it will happen. If convicted of espionage in the US, Assange could be sentenced to 175 years in prison. His legal team argue he would likely kill himself.

There is one glimmer of hope for the WikiLeaks founder, however, bound up in last weekend’s Australian election result. The victory of Anthony Albanese, a supporter of the journalist, has reignited calls to halt the extradition.

The legal case against Julian Assange is a game of luck and whim. Any day now, the British home secretary, Priti Patel, is expected to rubber stamp his extradition to the United States. What will happen to him there is uncertain.

The Westminster Magistrates’ Court formally approved his extradition on April 20 and Patel has until May 31 to announce whether it will happen. If convicted of espionage in the US, Assange could be sentenced to 175 years in prison. His legal team argue he would likely kill himself.

There is one glimmer of hope for the WikiLeaks founder, however, bound up in last weekend’s Australian election result. The victory of Anthony Albanese, a supporter of the journalist, has reignited calls to halt the extradition.

Albanese has said that while he didn’t sympathise with Assange for some of his actions, he could not see any purpose to keeping him in jail.

Albanese has said that while he didn’t sympathise with Assange for some of his actions, he could not see any purpose to keeping him in jail.

“The prime minister, Mr Albanese, has previously said ‘enough is enough’. [Then shadow] Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus issued a statement last year confirming that Labor wanted the matter ‘brought to an end’,” says lawyer and human rights activist Kellie Tranter, who is a former WikiLeaks Party senate candidate. “So it remains to be seen whether such statements will result in the new government requesting that the US drop the case.”

She was “cautiously optimistic” about the case of Assange, who faces 17 charges under the US Espionage Act relating to the publication of classified documents and information related to US war crimes.

“It is helpful that the Greens – who have been calling for the Australian government to take action in the Assange case for some time – may hold the balance of power in the senate,” Tranter added.

Earlier this week, Albanese travelled to Japan for a meeting of the Quad leaders – from India, Japan, the US and Australia – to deliver a message about Australia’s policy changes.

Supporters including Tranter had urged the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to include the whistleblower on the agenda, and not just as a sideline issue.

The meeting was the “ideal opportunity” for Albanese to speak with US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to request that Assange be allowed to come home, said Greg Barns SC, an adviser to the Australian Assange campaign.

A spokesperson for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet said they were unable to provide comment on Quad agenda items. Comment was being sought from DFAT.

Stella Assange, who married the WikiLeaks founder in Belmarsh prison this year and is the mother of their two children, told The Saturday Paper the case had become political. She insisted the government had a duty to protect its citizens.

“By failing to act, it’s not just negligent; it shows that whoever is in office that isn’t acting is not fit for office,” the human rights lawyer said. “This can end today if the Australian government decides to do something about it.”

Every human rights organisation in the world had said the extradition of the Townsville-born computer hacker, editor and publisher should be stopped, she said. The latest to speak out is the Council of Europe.

Earlier this month, then Foreign Affairs minister Marise Payne and her Labor shadow, Penny Wong, claimed Australia couldn’t intervene, as the matter was before the courts.

But former British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, speaking to The Saturday Paper, rubbished the claim. The MP pleaded to Australia to “speak up for your own”.

“Whilst in Britain there are – for good reason – constraints about raising [it] in parliament because it’s a sub judice matter, that does not apply in Australia,” Corbyn said.

“There is no legal case in Australia. So there’s nothing to stop every Australian politician speaking up with Julian Assange, and I think they should. Please do, because it will help the freedom for journalists everywhere.”

Barns said there was “plenty of political support” for Albanese to ensure the whistleblower does not face an effective death penalty in the US. He pointed out that the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group had 30 members from every party before the election. This is expected to increase, Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, said.

“Ultimately I don’t think Albo wants to become another Australian prime minister who is complicit in Julian’s persecution and more broadly the Western descent into barbarity that has been taking place ever since the Iraq invasion,” he said. “Whether he has the power to resist that is up to us.”

A spokesperson for DFAT said the government had “consistently raised the situation of Mr Assange with the United States and the United Kingdom”. The spokesperson said the government “conveyed our expectations that Mr Assange is entitled to due process, humane and fair treatment, access to proper medical and other care, and access to his legal team”. However, “The extradition case regarding Julian Assange is between the United States and the United Kingdom; Australia is not a party to this case.”

US–Australian relations are one of many matters that will test Albanese’s leadership. According to Tranter, freedom of information requests show “that consecutive governments have long held the view that the Assange case has strategic implications for the alliance”. She says this is why no Australian government had spoken out in support of his human rights or provided diplomatic assistance to him.

“Mr Albanese should take a stand consistent with his stated ethos of protecting the persecuted and not forsake any Australian citizen to personal abuse for political purposes,” Tranter said.

As he awaits his fate, Assange is incarcerated in London’s maximum security Belmarsh prison. He was taken there after seven years in the Ecuador embassy in London, where he sought asylum to prevent extradition to Sweden over now-abandoned sexual assault charges.

“Assange’s appeal is like a game of extradition snakes and ladders,” says Nick Vamos, the former head of extradition at Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service. “He managed to take his argument about US prison conditions all the way to the door of the Supreme Court, but they rejected it, so he slid back down to the magistrates’ court where he started.”

Assange “can’t climb that particular ladder again”, Vamos says. “But he can still appeal on the other grounds that he lost originally, so there are likely to be a few more ups and downs before this process is finally over.”

The partner and head of business crime at London firm Peters & Peters said the attempts to persuade Home Secretary Patel not to order the extradition would not be successful – “not in a million years”.

Vamos says that if there is another appeal in Britain it could take another six months to be heard. If it is denied, another avenue is the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, France, which could issue an order directing Britain not to extradite Assange until its case is heard.

Jennifer Robinson, part of Assange’s legal team, has confirmed this is a path being considered.

“This case is too important from a free speech point of view, but also from a humanitarian point of view,” she said.

“We know what the medical evidence is about Julian’s mental health, and that he will find a way to commit suicide if he’s extradited.”

In all, Vamos says, these appeals could take another two years. But once Assange’s extradition has been signed off, he says, US Marshals are free to fly to Britain to arrest Assange: “It will normally happen within a couple of weeks of Patel making the order.”

At an EU Free Assange rally in Brussels, on April 23, Assange’s wife wiped away tears as she spoke to the crowd. The event was aimed at targeting European leaders, with speeches by politicians from various countries. “In the end this will end up in Europe,” Stella Assange said. “Europe can free Julian. Europe must free Julian.”

She recalled that 15 years into his 27-year imprisonment, people thought Nelson Mandela would never be liberated. “But he was, because decent people in that case came out and they shouted for his freedom, even if they were the only person in the square to shout,” she said.

“The fact is, it takes a few decent people to show the way and what we stand for, because we create the reality around us.”

Activists were defending “not just decency and the memory” of all the tens of thousands of victims of the Iraq and Afghan war, caught up in the crimes that WikiLeaks exposed; they were also standing up for the right to a free future.

“What has been done to Julian is a crime,” Stella Assange said. “The law is being abused in order to keep him incarcerated, year after year, for doing the right thing … When will it end? Will it end?”

Read original article in The Saturday Paper

More articles urging action by Australian Labor Party
– Stuart Rees in Opportunity for Albanese intervention to free Julian Assange. ‘It’s time.’
– Guy Rundle in Labor should honour its commitment to free speech — and save Julian Assange

ABC interview Andrew Wilkie pushes Prime Minster
Foreign Minister Penny Wong has echoed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s statement that “loud hailer diplomacy” might not be the best way to address the extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Meanwhile long time Assange supporter Andrew Wilkie says Anthony Albanese should be on the phone to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to resolve the matter. ABC NewsRadio’s Jamie Travers spoke to Independent MP Andrew Wilkie.

Who Controls UK Home Secretary Priti Patel

On the 18th May 2022, Kit Klarenberg writes in The Grayzone: Leaked emails expose UK Home Secretary Priti Patel’s connection to MI6-style ‘research and influence operation’ A deeply anti-democratic MI6-linked cabal’s apparent influence on Priti Patel raises serious questions about her fitness to rule on Julian Assange’s extradition to the US. Cabal now managing MI6-inspired … Continue reading “Who Controls UK Home Secretary Priti Patel”

On the 18th May 2022, Kit Klarenberg writes in The Grayzone: Leaked emails expose UK Home Secretary Priti Patel’s connection to MI6-style ‘research and influence operation’

A deeply anti-democratic MI6-linked cabal’s apparent influence on Priti Patel raises serious questions about her fitness to rule on Julian Assange’s extradition to the US.

  • Cabal now managing MI6-inspired “research and influence operation” 
  • Effort may be funded by intelligence agency actors
  • British Home Secretary implicated in plot
  • Green advocates and perceived Chinese agents targeted
  • Home Office infiltrated by cabal’s civil service mole
  • Cabal seeks to seize power over energy policy and “displace” government minister

British Home Secretary Priti Patel is due to imminently decide on whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is extradited to the US, where he faces life imprisonment for journalistic activities. 

The Grayzone can exclusively reveal that Patel appears to be embroiled in a covert “research and influence operation,” directly inspired by MI6 “principles and methods” and guided in part by Richard Dearlove, the foreign spying agency’s former chief. 

While the Home Secretary may not be fully apprised of the dark forces swirling around her, and the purposes for which she is being exploited, there is incontrovertible evidence that her ministerial agenda and Home Office policies are being directly influenced as a result of her links to the shady group.

“Dark Ullen” to be “conducted on the same broad principles and methods as an [MI6] research and influence operation

This May 15, the Grayzone exposed a shadowy intelligence cabal’s plot to sabotage Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal, remove her from office, and replace her with Boris Johnson in order to secure a ‘hard’ withdrawal from the EU. The cabal pursued a variety of undemocratic, if not outright criminal methods to achieve its aims.

A vast tranche containing leaked email messages between members of the cabal provided the sourcing for that exposé. Further communications reviewed and verified by The Grayzone point to more recent, shockingly diabolical schemes. 

These include plots to smear environmental activists as communist agents of Chinese influence, paint Ukrainian refugees as potential Russian double agents seeking to carry out terror attacks on British soil, and “displace” Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Minister Kwasi Kwarteng. 

The spectral group’s apparent leader and puppet master is Gwythian Prins, a member of the Chief of Defence Staff’s Strategy Advisory Panel, and former NATO and Ministry of Defence advisor. On January 21st, Prins wrote to former MI6 director Richard Dearlove – a key member of the cabal – outlining the terms of ‘Dark Ullen’, the codeword title of “our China project.”

“Dark Ullen will have no structure and hence no post-holder titles: it will be conducted on the same broad principles and methods as an SIS [MI6] research and influence operation [emphasis added],” Prins wrote, adding that he would seek annual remuneration of £60,000 for the effort. The operation’s “sun king” would be invoiced as a sole trader, not an employee, so British tax authorities would not consider Dark Ullen a commercial entity and ask further questions.

Who or what ultimately underwrote Dark Ullen has not been confirmed. As The Grayzone’s previous investigation detailed, the cabal can depend on sizable financing from a number of wealthy and reclusive Brexiteers. In a separate email in Oct 2020, Prins proposed to Dearlove the establishment of a “Vauxhall Cross unit,” a reference to the headquarters of the UK’s MI6 Secret Intelligence Service. Making clear he was “fully prepared” to enter Dearlove’s “world,” Prins suggested if the former spook’s “successor” saw “our value to him,” they might “fund the operation.” Could this have been a reference to John Scarlett, or another subsequent MI6 director?

Next, on February 21, 2022, Prins told Patrick Robertson, director of the pro-Brexit Bruges Group think tank, that he was “honoured” to have met Patel face-to-face earlier that evening. He referred to the Home Secretary as “a refreshing change from the soggy mass of current politicians.”

Cabal proposes anti-green activist attack with “the sort of work that MI5…would be doing” 

During Prins’ summit with Patel, he provided her with an extensive, practically impenetrable diagram of environmental and green energy advocates, outlining their proximity to Downing Street. The chart offers an apparent snapshot of the MI6-inspired “research and influence operation” Prins proposed.

Considering the various actors on the elaborate diagram to be potential or actual Chinese agents, Prins sought to have them undermined, maligned, and worse. One “person of interest” cited was Ben Caldecott, founding director of Oxford University’s Sustainable Finance Group. 

Prins contended Caldecott was not only troublingly “ubiquitous,” but “potentially open” to “blackmail/voluntary conversion” by Beijing, for reasons unstated. He nonetheless pledged that Dark Ullen, once initiated, would engage in “the sort of work that MI5 run properly would be doing” to target Caldecott, along with other perceived Chinese snakes in the grass: spying, discrediting, and disruption, presumably, with the Home Office’s backing and imprimatur.

Several Tory lawmakers have shared copies of a pamphlet Prins published on climate change, in which the author contends “the racism of Critical Race Theory, support for Marxist purposes of Black Lives Matter and anarchism of deep green activism are all grist to the mill of the UFWD [China’s Ministry of State Security United Front Work Dept].”

The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics where Prins formerly taught slammed the Tory operative in September 2021 essay, branding the views expressed in his climate change pamphlet as “weird propaganda.”

Finding “a way” to influence Priti Patel

In his email to Robertson of the Bruges Group, Prins requested that a dedicated Dark Ullen protonmail address be created for Patel so they could remain in contact. He further advised that the Home Secretary use the encrypted messaging app Signal “for swift messaging me should she so wish.”

He added that Evelyn Farr, a “centrally-placed” infiltrator in the civil service, “really liked” Patel too, and was “all up” to join the Home Office “if a way can be found.” 

As The Grayzone previously revealed, Farr passed sensitive inside information to the cabal, which in turn credited her with a “vital” role in torpedoing Theresa May’s Brexit deal, and indeed her premiership.

Three days after proposing a secret line to Patel, Prins emailed a copy of Farr’s CV to Robertson, along with a list of articles she wrote under the pseudonym Caroline Bell advocating for a No Deal Brexit. The document was specifically earmarked for the Home Secretary’s private perusal. A“way” to Patel had evidentially been found.

Dearlove, who was copied on the communique, branded the resume “ideal,” but described the article list as “deadly” and for Patel’s eyes only, as “it tells a Remainer PUS [permanent undersecretary] who our source was in their midst and why the Withdrawal Agreement went belly up [emphasis added].” 

Prins subsequently warned Robertson that he and Patel should “tightly” protect these incriminating documents, “which in the wrong hands blow [Farr’s] cover because they show how central she was as an asset to all of us during the grisly May Days and how vital to our eventual success [emphasis added].”

In a subsequent email that same day to Robertson and Dearlove, Prins stated that as Farr would soon be “alongside” Patel, it was necessary to promptly “craft a strategy and build political alliances to place ” the Home Office, Ministry of Defence and “to a degree” the Foreign Office in control of British energy policy, in order to “displace” Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Minister Kwasi Kwarteng.

Prins emphasized his desire to “cull” Kwarteng’s department outright, dubbing it a “hangover” from the “interventionism” of David Cameron’s government. He also called to “lift the fracking ban,” ramp up production of North Sea oil and gas, increase energy imports from the US, Israel and Qatar, and precipitate a “showdown” with “watermelon useful idiots.” Once their “centrally-placed” civil service infiltrator was safely ensconced with Patel, the planned Dark Ullen war on environmentalism – and China – would begin in earnest.

Patel parrots paranoid cabal talking points on Ukrainian refugees

Meanwhile, an actual war was raging in Eastern Europe. On March 9th, at a time of rising and widespread condemnation of London for failing to welcome substantial numbers of Ukrainian refugees, Prins emailed Robertson, Farr, and Dearlove a set of ‘key messages’ for the Home Office. This content could be “turned into an op/ed” and published under Patel’s name, or serve as a speech, which would allow her to “regain control over the visa narrative.”

One of those ‘key messages’ was that by offering sanctuary to those fleeing Russia’s military operation, the UK could expose itself to hordes of “‘false flag’ murdering agents of Putin.” The paranoid framing was a clear reference to the purported Novichok attack on GRU double agent Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia, in March 2018.

Just ten days after Prins furnished his talking points, which can be viewed in full here, Patel used her Conservative Party conference address to make that precise charge, invoking the Salisbury incident along the way.

“The truth is that a very small number of people can wreck utter havoc, and Russia has a history of covert hostile activity,” Patel declared on March 19. “And I’m afraid it is naive and misguided to think that only men can be covert operatives, or that refugee flows would not be subject to some form of exploitation.

“There are those who would come to our country, to this country, who would mean us harm and who plot to strike at our very way of life.”

Patel inextricably linked to security state hellbent on destroying Assange, antiwar dissenters

Even before Patel’s connection to an MI6-linked domestic influence operation was exposed, she was burdened with conflicts of interest that compromised her fitness to rule on sensitive, seismic matter like the extradition of Julian Assange. 

As UK journalist Matt Kennard has documented, Patel sat on the advisory council of the neoconservative Henry Jackson Society think tank alongside Lord James Arbuthnot – a former Conservative Minister of Defence whose wife, Lady Emma Arbuthnot, made two key rulings against Assange in 2018, before being forced to step aside due to a “perception of bias.”

The Henry Jackson Society has counted CIA director James Woolsey as a patron since 2006, and hosted three other former chiefs since 2014, including then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2020. While leading the CIA in 2017, Pompeo designated WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” which opened the floodgates for untrammeled surveillance, harassment, and persecution of Assange and his collaborators, leading the Agency to hatch a scandalous plot to kidnap or even kill the WikiLeaks founder.

In a grotesque twist of fate, the person in charge of whether innocent victims of conflict can enter Britain will also decide whether the world’s most famous anti-war activist and publisher, Julian Assange, should exit.

While there do not appear to be any crib notes or talking points regarding the persecuted WikiLeaks founder in the tranche of leaked emails reviewed by The Grayzone, it is safe to assume the intelligence cabal bringing its influence to bear on Patel would strongly favor his extradition to the US. 

Indeed, the cabal’s members seem to view anyone who departs from their imperialist worldview, or who stands in the way of their maximalist agenda, as absolute traitors. Prins’ apparent belief that those who advocate for environmentally friendly energy policies are secret communist agents of influence emanates from the same worldview. 

The cabal’s paranoid tendencies are underscored by a leaked email in which Dearlove compares former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to a Cold War MI6 defector, insisting that the social democratic politician simply “could not be Prime Minister,” as Corbyn “belonged to the other side on so many crucial questions.”

Assange’s extradition to the US would reflect the unfairness of the 2003 Anglo-US Extradition Treaty, a measure that deepened Britain’s role as an American vassal, and which will determine Assange’s fate.

The cabal has sought to permanently cement this servile relationship with Washington, conniving to ensure a hard Brexit that will remove the UK from EU security commitments and enshrine US dominion.

Patel and the government department she heads are core components in the ongoing effort to intertwine Britain at every level with US military and intelligence structures, operations, and goals.

As the person who did more than perhaps anyone to expose the sinister inner workings of the trans-Atlantic alliance, and who popularized the bulk release of sensitive secret documents that the email tranche detailed here represents, the very existence of Assange poses an ever-present threat to these cynical designs. 

Read original article in The Grayzone
or NiqNaq

Amnesty International: US Assurances on Treatment of Assange Not Worth the Paper They are Written On

On the 28th October 2021, Amnesty International legal adviser Simon Crowther reports on Twitter Re-reported on RT News Amnesty International legal adviser Simon Crowther has slammed the US government’s assurances it would not keep WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in solitary confinement, saying they’re “not worth the paper they’re written on.” During the second day of … Continue reading “Amnesty International: US Assurances on Treatment of Assange Not Worth the Paper They are Written On”

On the 28th October 2021, Amnesty International legal adviser Simon Crowther reports on Twitter

Re-reported on RT News

Amnesty International legal adviser Simon Crowther has slammed the US government’s assurances it would not keep WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in solitary confinement, saying they’re “not worth the paper they’re written on.”

During the second day of Washington’s appeal in London’s High Court to extradite Assange, Crowther warned that the assurances made by lawyers representing the US should not be trusted, pointing out that the country has a problem with respecting basic human rights.

Noting that Amnesty International considers prolonged solitary confinement to be a form of “torture or other ill treatment,”Crowther said, “These assurances are not worth the paper they’re written on because where a state has to give such an assurance, it really is an indication that that state’s human rights record has a problem.”

You wouldn’t have to give an assurance that you weren’t going to hold someone in solitary confinement if prolonged solitary confinement wasn’t so widespread in the US

Crowther also warned that the US government’s assurances “have huge holes in them” and pointed out that they are not legally binding promises. He expressed fear that the US would make an excuse to backtrack on them if Assange were extradited.

“Amnesty are really worried about any kind of diplomatic assurance because it’s not legally binding and prolonged solitary confinement often constitutes torture or other ill treatment,” he concluded.

UK’s Former Brexit Secretary Says Assange Judge ‘Got the Law Wrong

On the 22nd January 2021, Richard Norton-Taylor interviews Dave Davis in Declassified UK David Davis has told Declassified UK that the British legal establishment is “blinkered” to the one-sidedness of the UK/US extradition treaty under which the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is being heard. Davis, a former chair of the Conservative Party who served as … Continue reading “UK’s Former Brexit Secretary Says Assange Judge ‘Got the Law Wrong”

On the 22nd January 2021, Richard Norton-Taylor interviews Dave Davis in Declassified UK

David Davis has told Declassified UK that the British legal establishment is “blinkered” to the one-sidedness of the UK/US extradition treaty under which the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is being heard.

Davis, a former chair of the Conservative Party who served as Brexit minister in 2016-18, described the treaty as “massively asymmetric” and said the judge, Vanessa Baraitser, “got the law wrong” by claiming the treaty included political crimes. 

“Parliament made clear in terms that it would not cover political crimes,” he said.

The only circumstances in which alleged crimes with a political ingredient could be pursued under the treaty was when violence was involved, Davis insisted. He has raised the case, which has serious implications for human rights and press freedom – and in the view of Davis, a leading Brexiteer, British sovereignty – as a matter of urgency in the House of Commons.

Davis has been prevented from tabling a motion for debate in the Commons on the grounds that it would breach sub judice rules even though Assange’s case is being heard by a judge alone with no jury potentially liable to be influenced by outside pressure.

Baraitser, the district judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, ruled this month that Assange should not be deported to the US on the particular grounds of his mental health. She said there was a “substantial” risk that Assange would commit suicide if he was incarcerated in the conditions he was likely to be subjected to in the US.

However, she dismissed defence arguments, including that Assange’s motives were to expose US war crimes and other abuses of power. In key passages, Baraitser stated that when the UK Parliament passed the new extradition treaty with the US in 2003, it “clearly took the decision to remove the political offences bar which had previously been available to those facing extradition”. 

She added: “The removal of this bar is a clear indication that Parliament no longer intended for the protection to be available. The [treaty] retained the bar to extradition where the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person on the basis of their political opinions… but removed the protection for offences which have the character of a political offence.”

Davis contests this. The treaty was negotiated in secret by Tony Blair’s government and rushed through Parliament despite opposition from across the Commons. The “lacuna” in the treaty the judge appeared to have referred to – the “political offences” bar –  was never admitted by ministers at the time the treaty was debated, he said.

‘Massive disparity’

Under the extradition treaty, US prosecutors do not have to prove their case beyond claiming “reasonable suspicion” and there does not have to be any prima facie consideration of the charges in Britain. 

However, for Britain to extradite someone from the US, it has to clear the higher test of demonstrating “probable cause” and that could be challenged in the US courts. The US secretary of state also has a potentially decisive role. 

“There is a massive disparity between justice for foreigners in the US and justice for anybody in this country”, Davis told Declassified.

He told the Commons last year: “Since we agreed the UK-US extradition treaty in 2003, it has been abundantly clear that the British government of the day struck a truly dreadful deal – asymmetric, sometimes ineffective and often unfair on British citizens. Countless examples down the years have shown that, from the NatWest three to Christopher Tappin, from GaryMcKinnon to Anne Sacoolas, the person charged with causing the death by dangerous driving of Harry Dunn.”

British prosecutors have sought the extradition from the US of Sacoolas, reportedly a CIA officer who was based at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, but this request has been rejected by the US authorities. The British foreign office has said that “the US refusal to extradite Anne Sacoolas amounts to a denial of justice, and she should return to the UK”.

Davis added: “We now risk yet another serious miscarriage of justice with the US extradition request for Dr Mike Lynch, a successful and entrepreneurial British businessmen… Dr Lynch is now facing almost identical criminal charges in the United States, in yet another aggressive attempt by American authorities to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. Despite the Serious Fraud Office deciding that there is no basis for a prosecution in the United Kingdom, the United States authorities are doggedly pursuing his extradition.”

The US has a tradition of using its broad extradition treaties to cast a wide legal net around the world. It was now extending it to commercial cases and white collar crime, issues that were not debated at all in Parliament, Davis said.

Though the Blair government stressed the importance of the new treaty by pointing to the need to combat paedophilia and terrorists, most US cases were not in pursuit of terrorists or paedophiles or murderers, he said. 

“I was the shadow home secretary at the time and I opposed this treaty, but eventually our party gave in on the grounds that it was about paedophilia and terrorism and violent crime,” he told MPs.

If Assange was extradited, Davis told Declassified, he would be manacled in a police cell and immediately made to appear a criminal. Prosecutors would take the lead presenting their case before a grand jury – a process Davis described as medieval – and he would come under severe pressure to succumb to a plea bargain. He may eventually be sent back to Britain but faced a real prospect of dying in jail.

Davis also pointed out that journalists in the US were protected by the first amendment. Daniel Ellsberg was charged for leaking the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times. The newspaper was never prosecuted. No journalist in Britain or the US was prosecuted for publishing scores of secret documents from America’s National Security Agency or Britain’s GCHQ leaked by Edward Snowden.

The irony, said Davis, is that if Assange were an American journalist in the US, he would not be prosecuted.

Read original article in Declassified UK

UK’S Former BREXIT Secretary Says Assange Judge ‘Got the Law Wrong’

On the 22 January 2021, Richard Norton-Taylor reports in Declassified UK David Davis has told Declassified UK that the British legal establishment is “blinkered” to the one-sidedness of the UK/US extradition treaty under which the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is being heard. Davis, a former chair of the Conservative Party who served as Brexit minister … Continue reading “UK’S Former BREXIT Secretary Says Assange Judge ‘Got the Law Wrong’”

On the 22 January 2021, Richard Norton-Taylor reports in Declassified UK

David Davis has told Declassified UK that the British legal establishment is “blinkered” to the one-sidedness of the UK/US extradition treaty under which the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is being heard.

Davis, a former chair of the Conservative Party who served as Brexit minister in 2016-18, described the treaty as “massively asymmetric” and said the judge, Vanessa Baraitser, “got the law wrong” by claiming the treaty included political crimes. 

“Parliament made clear in terms that it would not cover political crimes,” he said.

The only circumstances in which alleged crimes with a political ingredient could be pursued under the treaty was when violence was involved, Davis insisted. He has raised the case, which has serious implications for human rights and press freedom – and in the view of Davis, a leading Brexiteer, British sovereignty – as a matter of urgency in the House of Commons.

Davis has been prevented from tabling a motion for debate in the Commons on the grounds that it would breach sub judice rules even though Assange’s case is being heard by a judge alone with no jury potentially liable to be influenced by outside pressure.

Baraitser, the district judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, ruled this month that Assange should not be deported to the US on the particular grounds of his mental health. She said there was a “substantial” risk that Assange would commit suicide if he was incarcerated in the conditions he was likely to be subjected to in the US.

However, she dismissed defence arguments, including that Assange’s motives were to expose US war crimes and other abuses of power. In key passages, Baraitser stated that when the UK Parliament passed the new extradition treaty with the US in 2003, it “clearly took the decision to remove the political offences bar which had previously been available to those facing extradition”. 

She added: “The removal of this bar is a clear indication that Parliament no longer intended for the protection to be available. The [treaty] retained the bar to extradition where the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person on the basis of their political opinions… but removed the protection for offences which have the character of a political offence.”

Davis contests this. The treaty was negotiated in secret by Tony Blair’s government and rushed through Parliament despite opposition from across the Commons. The “lacuna” in the treaty the judge appeared to have referred to – the “political offences” bar –  was never admitted by ministers at the time the treaty was debated, he said.

‘Massive disparity’

Under the extradition treaty, US prosecutors do not have to prove their case beyond claiming “reasonable suspicion” and there does not have to be any prima facie consideration of the charges in Britain. 

However, for Britain to extradite someone from the US, it has to clear the higher test of demonstrating “probable cause” and that could be challenged in the US courts. The US secretary of state also has a potentially decisive role. 

“There is a massive disparity between justice for foreigners in the US and justice for anybody in this country”, Davis told Declassified.

He told the Commons last year: “Since we agreed the UK-US extradition treaty in 2003, it has been abundantly clear that the British government of the day struck a truly dreadful deal – asymmetric, sometimes ineffective and often unfair on British citizens. Countless examples down the years have shown that, from the NatWest three to Christopher Tappin, from Gary McKinnon to Anne Sacoolas, the person charged with causing the death by dangerous driving of Harry Dunn.”

British prosecutors have sought the extradition from the US of Sacoolas, reportedly a CIA officer who was based at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, but this request has been rejected by the US authorities. The British foreign office has said that “the US refusal to extradite Anne Sacoolas amounts to a denial of justice, and she should return to the UK”.

Davis added: “We now risk yet another serious miscarriage of justice with the US extradition request for Dr Mike Lynch, a successful and entrepreneurial British businessmen… Dr Lynch is now facing almost identical criminal charges in the United States, in yet another aggressive attempt by American authorities to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. Despite the Serious Fraud Office deciding that there is no basis for a prosecution in the United Kingdom, the United States authorities are doggedly pursuing his extradition.”

The US has a tradition of using its broad extradition treaties to cast a wide legal net around the world. It was now extending it to commercial cases and white collar crime, issues that were not debated at all in Parliament, Davis said.

Though the Blair government stressed the importance of the new treaty by pointing to the need to combat paedophilia and terrorists, most US cases were not in pursuit of terrorists or paedophiles or murderers, he said. 

“I was the shadow home secretary at the time and I opposed this treaty, but eventually our party gave in on the grounds that it was about paedophilia and terrorism and violent crime,” he told MPs.

If Assange was extradited, Davis told Declassified, he would be manacled in a police cell and immediately made to appear a criminal. Prosecutors would take the lead presenting their case before a grand jury – a process Davis described as medieval – and he would come under severe pressure to succumb to a plea bargain. He may eventually be sent back to Britain but faced a real prospect of dying in jail.

Davis also pointed out that journalists in the US were protected by the first amendment. Daniel Ellsberg was charged for leaking the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times. The newspaper was never prosecuted. No journalist in Britain or the US was prosecuted for publishing scores of secret documents from America’s National Security Agency or Britain’s GCHQ leaked by Edward Snowden.

The irony, said Davis, is that if Assange were an American journalist in the US, he would not be prosecuted.

Read original article in Declassified UK

US Diplomat wife Anne Sacoolas issued with Interpol red notice over fatal UK crash

On 12th May 2020, ABC/Reuters reports Interpol has reportedly issued a notice for the wife of a United States diplomat wanted in Britain over a fatal car crash, in a case that has caused friction between London and Washington. Harry Dunn, 19, died last year when his motorbike collided with a car driving on the wrong … Continue reading “US Diplomat wife Anne Sacoolas issued with Interpol red notice over fatal UK crash”

On 12th May 2020, ABC/Reuters reports

Interpol has reportedly issued a notice for the wife of a United States diplomat wanted in Britain over a fatal car crash, in a case that has caused friction between London and Washington.

Harry Dunn, 19, died last year when his motorbike collided with a car driving on the wrong side of the road near RAF Croughton, an air force base in Northamptonshire in central England that is used by the US intelligence services.

Anne Sacoolas was charged with causing his death, but left Britain shortly after the accident, protected by diplomatic immunity and was never interviewed by police.

Radd Seiger, a spokesman for Mr Dunn’s family, wrote on Twitter that police in Northamptonshire had issued an Interpol red notice for Ms Sacoolas to be “circulated worldwide”.

Read article in ABC News

Also reported in
RT News
The Guardian

Editor’s Note: On the 23rd February 2020, BBC News reported ‘Harry Dunn crash: Family urge government to block Julian Assange extradition’

The 19-year-old’s parents have called on Dominic Raab and the government to refuse any further extradition requests by the US – including that of the Wikileaks co-founder – after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejected extraditing Sacoolas, last month.

Mr Pompeo previously raised the prospect of “a deal to be done” over Mr Dunn’s case and the US investigation of Prince Andrew’s Jeffery Epstein connections.

US-UK Extradition Treaty Double Standards

On the 4th May 2020, Taylor Hudak from acTVism Munich posted her latest update on the Julian Assange case, which includes an examination of the US-UK extradition treaty and a recap of the latest court hearing on Monday May 4th. To view more videos on Assange related topics: ► Assange’s fiancée speaks out: https://youtu.be/F19a8V2fsjU ► … Continue reading “US-UK Extradition Treaty Double Standards”

On the 4th May 2020, Taylor Hudak from acTVism Munich posted her latest update on the Julian Assange case, which includes an examination of the US-UK extradition treaty and a recap of the latest court hearing on Monday May 4th.

To view more videos on Assange related topics:
► Assange’s fiancée speaks out: https://youtu.be/F19a8V2fsjU
► Julian Assange Global Protest https://youtu.be/rSzVjzy7bDs
► Glenn Greenwald on Assange: https://youtu.be/kAvJ4JdeVq0
► Noam Chomsky on Assange: https://youtu.be/gP6T_-bqt40
► “WeAreMillions” Campaign for Assange: https://youtu.be/rEmG_SW2fkM
► Varoufakis on Assange: https://youtu.be/DcEdyRwjrgg
► Julian Assange “Stop Extradition Protest”: https://youtu.be/tMwXD5tPtrQ
► Dr. Jill Stein on Assange & Manning: https://youtu.be/tOdD-lvjK7k
► Julian Assange – Public Rally Event: https://youtu.be/QahCPwrZfJY
► Interview with Assange’s Father: https://youtu.be/roiyDkNbOkc
► Interview with Nils Melzer: https://youtu.be/f9KRxF9oVxQ
► Report on the 4th of February public rally for Assange: https://youtu.be/AqEz3y4cn0Y
► Abby Martin, Snowden, Chomsky, Jill Stein, Varoufakis, Horvat & Richter Respond: https://youtu.be/39IUOeQvaOw
► Srećko Horvat https://youtu.be/iYTOv0sj8VY

CITATION OF YOUTUBE THUMBNAL + INTRO: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Source. https://www.flickr.com/photos/dgcomso…
Author: David G Silvers.

Harry Dunn crash: Family urge government to block Julian Assange extradition

On 23rd February BBC News reports The family of Harry Dunn has urged the government to refuse the extradition of Julian Assange until the US returns the suspect in his death back to the UK. Dunn family spokesman Radd Seiger accused the US of “hypocrisy” in seeking Assange’s extradition, despite rejecting the return of Anne … Continue reading “Harry Dunn crash: Family urge government to block Julian Assange extradition”

On 23rd February BBC News reports

The family of Harry Dunn has urged the government to refuse the extradition of Julian Assange until the US returns the suspect in his death back to the UK.

Dunn family spokesman Radd Seiger accused the US of “hypocrisy” in seeking Assange’s extradition, despite rejecting the return of Anne Sacoolas.

She is suspected of causing the teenager’s death by dangerous driving.

The family said the foreign secretary told them he is “reviewing all options”.

The 19-year-old’s parents have called on Dominic Raab and the government to refuse any further extradition requests by the US – including that of the Wikileaks co-founder – after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejected extraditing Sacoolas, last month.

Treaty ‘torn up’

In refusing the UK’s “lawful” extradition request, Mr Seiger accused the US of launching “the single greatest attack” on its “so-called special relationship” with the UK.

Mr Seiger added: “The US is not behaving like an ally and has effectively thumbed its nose up at the UK and ignored the clearly laid out provisions in the treaty, effectively tearing it up.”

He said the principle of “reciprocity” is at the heart of any extradition treaty, which the US is “failing to abide by” in its “disgraceful refusal” to extradite Ms Sacoolas.

“In doing so, they are demonstrating an extraordinary amount of hypocrisy, and the double standards on display are unprecedented,” he added.

Mr Seiger continued: “On behalf of Harry Dunn’s family and the millions of concerned citizens in the UK, I now demand that the UK authorities block any further extraditions to the US, including the one of Julian Assange, until such time as Anne Sacoolas is extradited and back on UK soil facing the justice system here.”

Read original article in BBC News

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, … Continue reading “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.