Category: Uncategorized

On the 3rd May 2024 the co-chairs of the Australian Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Committee Andrew Wilkie, Josh Wilson, David Shoebridge and Bridget Archer issued this press release.

The release reads:

240426-JW-Assange-Open-Letter-FINAL__1_

Editor’s Note: The co-chairs of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Committee represent all of the Australian Federal Parliamentarians who want to see Julian return to Australia without charge. At present we have counted 120 of the 226 Senators and Members of Federal Parliament who have supported actions to bring Julian Assange home

On the 17th April 2024, Andrew Wilkie (Australian MP and co-chair of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Committee) posted this concerning article on his web site

“The United States Government’s assurance that Julian Assange would have all the protections of a US citizen in a US court is obviously a fantasy. That Mr Assange will have the ‘ability to raise and seek to rely upon at trial the rights and protections given under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States’, but its applicability ‘is exclusively within the purview of the U.S. Courts’ is no assurance at all. Either he does or he doesn’t, it’s as simple as that. Indeed these assurances are basically political promises and there is no way of enforcing them in a court of law.

“If the US can’t guarantee that Mr Assange will unequivocally be able to rely on the free speech protection under the First Amendment, then the United Kingdom High Court of Justice must allow Mr Assange to appeal his extradition. Even better, the US can come to a diplomatic solution and drop the prosecution of Mr Assange to allow him to return to Australia.”

Read original article on Andrew Wilkie’s blog

On the 14th April 2024 the Wall Street Journal reported on the US reach a plea deal to allow Julian to return to Australia

The [US] Justice Department is under growing pressure to reach a plea deal with Julian Assange, after a request to do so from the WikiLeaks founder’s native Australia and questions from a U.K. court that could prevent his extradition to the U.S. for many more months. 

The government of Australia last week asked the U.S. if it could reach a felony plea deal with Assange that could result in his return home, according to people familiar with the matter.

Rest of article requires a subscription and there is little follow reporting

Read original article in the Wall Street Journal.

However reported in the Age on 21st March 2024 in Assange legal team responds to reports of potential plea deal

As we reported earlier, The Wall Street Journal reported the US Justice Department is weighing whether to allow Julian Assange to plead guilty to a reduced charge of mishandling classified information, creating a path toward the resolution of his legal case.

However, a lawyer for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said his legal team saw no indication of a resolution to US charges against him.

The WSJ reported that the US Justice Department is considering whether to allow Assange to plead guilty to a reduced charge of mishandling classified information. The newspaper cited people familiar with the matter.

Such a deal would potentially allow Assange to enter a plea to the misdemeanour charge remotely, and walk free without travelling to the US, which has been seeking his extradition from the UK for years.

The WSJ reported that the US Justice Department is considering whether to allow Assange to plead guilty to a reduced charge of mishandling classified information. The newspaper cited people familiar with the matter.

Such a deal would potentially allow Assange to enter a plea to the misdemeanour charge remotely, and walk free without travelling to the US, which has been seeking his extradition from the UK for years.

In February 2024, 75 German Member’s of Parliament signed an open letter demanding Julian’s release.

Google translation reads :

Appeal: Members of the Bundestag speak out for Julian Assange’s freedom!

A year and a half ago there was already an open letter in which members of the Bundestag spoke out in favour of the immediate release of Julian Assange in the interests of press freedom and for humanitarian reasons. The call for the immediate release of Mr Assange, as expressed in Resolution 2317 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, remains extremely timely and urgent.

We are monitoring with great concern the ongoing criminal and extradition proceedings by the US Department of Justice against the founder of WikiLeaks.
Assange’s appeal against the decision to extradite him to the USA will be heard on February 20 and 21, 2024. This decision leaves him with no further domestic legal remedies.

Julian Assange already suffers from a depressive disorder and is considered to be at risk of suicide. He faces numerous charges in the United States over the alleged unlawful publication of diplomatic and other documents via the WikiLeaks platform. His prison conditions in Great Britain are unacceptable. If he is extradited, his physical and mental condition will continue to deteriorate; he could be held in solitary confinement for a longer period of time until the trial; if he is convicted, he will face a prison sentence of up to 175 years. For these reasons, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture last week advocated for the United Kingdom government to stop any possible extradition of Julian Assange to the United States of America.

We are advocating for charges against Julian Assange under the Espionage Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to be dropped. The political show trial against Assange must end immediately. He is entitled to a fair trial before the European Court of Human Rights. As long as there is no final decision from the ECHR in Julian Assange’s case, he may not be extradited to the USA.
A negative outcome for him from this negotiation would be a dangerous precedent and would mean another severe blow to the situation of press freedom in Europe. We therefore reiterate our call for the immediate release of Julian Assange and call on the Federal Government to emphasise this concern to the British and US governments in order to finally end the political persecution of Julian Assange.

Original letter in German

Appell-_Freilassung_Assange.pdf

On the 23rd February the editors received this message from the President of Timor-Leste, José Manuel Ramos-Horta.

Let Assange Be Free to Return to Australia 

I do not comment on the substance and merit of the case against JULIAN ASSANGE. As an informed and concerned person who deeply values media freedom, I just hope that sanity, justice and humanity prevail and Assange is let free to return to his native Australia. 

So many young lives were lost in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, on all sides involved, so many lies and half truths were said by all involved, so many more were wounded and rendered disabled and traumatised. Why continue to haunt someone who shared official communications with the public without endangering anyone’s life in the process. 

The US is far greater than the pettiness of revenge, it should be far greater in wisdom and humanity, it should simply close this dark chapter of US recent wars. 

J Ramos-Horta  21 February 2024

Accompanying this message is some background from a close associate and former team member.

For Julian Assange

In my role as the spokeswoman for the East Timorese resistance movement working to Jose Ramos Horta during the 1990’s, we relied on a free and fair media populated by journalists with a passion and a capacity for truth seeking and truth telling. Unafraid of consequences they would run stories because they were in the public interest, roughly translated that is ‘in the interest of humanity’. Julian did that. That was the right thing to do. He is a truth teller, a whistle blower, a man born for this moment.

The United States of America have made Julian a hero because, for some reason they have developed a fear of the light of truth. And, in so doing they have created the most important voice of our time. From now on, the world’s attention is on Julian.

As humans, we all live on this planet together, regardless of how differently each of us does life. But one thing is for sure, the ongoing state of all of our lives, peace and the healthy democratic practice that underpins it, the responsibility of nation states to uphold these values, have been placed fairly and squarely in the public’s eye.

We are all watching. This gaze represents an opportunity for the US to humbly admit to its wrong doing and put reparations in place.

Julian does not need pardoning because he has not done anything wrong. He has not broken any laws. He has acted only in the interests of justice, democracy, rule of law and the peace and stability of humanity on this planet. He is the Voice. He spoke up, no one else did.

Respect him, honour him. Bring him home, compensate him and then, release all whistle blowers who have been incarcerated for telling the truth.

It is time for the US to shine. Imagine it, I can.

Margherita Tracanelli
Former CNRM (National Council Maubere Resistance) Media &
Communication Director
1992-1999

On the 23rd November 2023, Greg Barnes, legal advisor to the Australian Assange Campaign issued a press statement on the ruling in the recent Rwandan deportation case.

Recently the UK Supreme Court ruled against the government’s policy of forcibly removing asylum seekers to Rwanda.  The decision is very relevant to Julian’s case because the Court said that the government had failed to look at the real risk of harm to people if they were sent to Rwanda.  The Court was also highlighted the problem with the UK government relying on assurances, – like the US Diplomatic Notes accepted by the court in the US appeal against Julian’s release in October 2021 – and indicated they were problematic, from a rule of law perspective, as a commitment which was not able to be enforced in a court.

Greg Barnes

For a detailed analysis read Craig Murray’s analysis on Znetwork

On the 30th April 2023, the editors collated a list of frequent misrepresentations by the Australian Government as reported through feedback from our active supporter base with 50,000 registrations

1. The Australian Government has been clear in our view that enough is enough. It is time for Mr Assange’s case to be brought to a close.

Rebuttal: While we appreciate the sentiment, we urge the Australian Government to provide more specific details on what they mean by “bringing the case to a close”. A clear timeline or plan of action would demonstrate a stronger commitment to advocating for Mr Assange’s rights and wellbeing. This case needs an urgent and robust strategy to ensure the best outcome in the quickest of timelines. It can not be an open ended statement.

2. The Foreign Minister has raised Mr Assange’s case at the highest levels and the Australian Government will continue to express its view to the governments of the UK and US.

Rebuttal: In March 2023 former senator Mr Rex Patrick received evidence from a freedom of information request that revealed that the Australian Government has not sent any formal letters to the UK or US governments regarding Mr Assange’s case. Not one letter has been sent from Anthony Albanese or Penny Wong in regard to Julian Assange. This raises fundamental questions about the level of commitment, integrity and action taken by the Australian Government in advocating for their citizen’s legal rights and wellbeing. We urge the Australian Government to take more concrete, transparent steps in supporting Mr Assange’s case.

3. Anthony Albanese has indicated he would pursue quiet diplomacy saying: ‘My position is that not all foreign affairs is best done with the loudhailer.”

Rebuttal: It is important for any government to engage in diplomacy and seek to resolve issues through peaceful means. However, in the case of Julian Assange, quiet diplomacy has not been effective in securing his release or ensuring his legal rights are protected. In fact, many believe that a more public and assertive approach is necessary to address the violations of Mr. Assange’s human rights and to bring attention to the implications of his case for press freedom and the right to information.
Furthermore, the use of “quiet diplomacy” can often result in a lack of transparency and accountability, allowing governments to act with impunity and without proper scrutiny. It is important for the Australian Government to demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability in its approach to Mr. Assange’s case, and to ensure that it is advocating for the legal rights and wellbeing of its citizen in a manner that is consistent with democratic principles and international law.

4. In 2019 Mr Assange had withdrawn consent for Consular Support. Since that time, the Department of Foreign Affairs has written 45 times to offer to visit.

Rebuttal: It is important to note that Mr Assange’s has never rejected, refused or rescinded consular support. It is true however that in 2019 Mr Assange withdrew his consent for the Australian Government to have access to his medical records. It was not Assange that rejected consular support but the Australia Government withdrew it and then blamed Mr Assange. We urge the Australian Government to take a more proactive and committed approach in advocating for Mr Assange’s case.

5. The Australian Government recognises the sovereignty of other nations and their legal systems. We cannot interfere with court proceedings in other countries.

While we acknowledge the importance of respecting the sovereignty of other nations, we urge the Australian Government to take a more active role in advocating for Mr Assange’s legal rights and wellbeing, as they have done in the past for other Australians in trouble abroad. The Australian government has through diplomatic intervention won the release of six Australian citizens from foreign jails since 2007: David Hicks (U.S./Guantanamo), Melinda Taylor (Libya), James Ricketson (Cambodia), Sean Turnell (Myanmar), Kylie Moore-Gilbert (Iran), and Peter Greste (Egypt). In the case of Kylie Moore-Gilbert, an Australian academic who was imprisoned in Iran on charges of espionage, the Australian Government intervened diplomatically and provided legal support for her case. Similarly, in the case of David Hicks, an Australian citizen who was detained at Guantanamo Bay, the Australian Government provided legal assistance and advocated for his repatriation. He was never put on trial by the U.S. after years in Guantanamo. Yet Australia intervened to free him while that legal process played out. Hicks was never put on trial after years spent in Guantanamo. The legal process in Turnell’s case was still ongoing as, like Assange, he had only been charged, but not convicted.
We believe that the Australian Government should take a similar approach in the case of Mr Assange, which can include diplomatic efforts, public statements, and legal interventions in support of his case.

6. The US has a separation of power and President Biden cannot interfere with the Department of Justice – judicial process in Mr Assange’s case.

Rebuttal: While it is true that the US has a separation of powers, it is important to note that the US government holds significant influence and power in the outcome of Mr Assange’s case. We urge the US government to ensure that Mr Assange receives a fair and just legal process, in accordance with international law and human rights standards. The Australian Government must also continue to advocate for their citizen’s legal rights and wellbeing in the face of potential human rights violations.
One example of a president using their influence to drop alleged charges is the case of President Obama and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In 2013, Snowden was charged with multiple violations of the Espionage Act after he leaked classified information about the US government’s surveillance activities. However, in 2016, President Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning, a former Army intelligence analyst who had also leaked classified information and commuted her sentence. This led some to speculate that President Obama may have been considering a similar pardon or commutation for Snowden.
Another example is the case of President Trump and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 election, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to drop the charges against him in 2020. This move was criticised by some as a politically motivated decision influenced by President Trump.
While these examples may not be directly applicable to the case of Mr Assange, they demonstrate the potential for presidential influence in the legal process. It is important for the US government to ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially, regardless of any political considerations.

On the 29th December 2009, President Barack Obama issued an executive order defining conditions on classifying information

This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism.  Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government.  Also, our Nation’s progress depends on the free flow of information both within the Government and to the American people.  Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations.  Protecting information critical to our Nation’s security and demonstrating our commitment to open Government through accurate and accountable application of classification standards and routine, secure, and effective declassification are equally important priorities.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

…

Sec. 1.7.  Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.

  
(a)  In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1)  conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2)  prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3)  restrain competition; or
(4)  prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

…

Editors Note: Being Australian we are unsure of the gravity of breaching a US President’s Executive Order. If say there were a widespread and significant breaches of an Australian Minister’s directives then we would expect at least calls for a Royal Commission. However as the US President is Commander in Chief of the US military then could one expect widespread and significant breaches to be considered acts of mutiny? We draw attention to the Generals in ability to provide the Collateral Murder videos over multiple requests by Reuters. Seemingly their bureaucratic incompetence was a ploy to ‘prevent embarrassment’

Refer Archives Document
The Guardian – All Lies

On the 4th March 2023, the 5th Belmarsh Tribunal was held in the Great Hall of the Sydney University

Transcript-Sydney-Belmarsh-Tribunal

Read more:
Progressive International Invitation

Dated the 2nd January 2023, Jack Enadcott distributed a copy of his review of the book ‘The Trial of Julian Assange’ by Nils Melzer

Editor’s Note: This review expresses the opinions of Jack Endacott

Readers-Review-Trial-of-Julian-Assange-Final

Jack Endacott can be contacted at ejendacott@gmail.com