ON 24th February 2020 Afshin Rattansi, on RT Going Underground interviews Nils Melzer We speak to the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer about the persecution of Julian Assange. He discusses the threat Assange’s persecution poses to press freedom, why mainstream media are starting to slowly support the Wikileaks founder, the allegations Julian Assange … Continue reading “Nils Melzer: Julian Assange Will Face a Show Trial in the United States!”
ON 24th February 2020 Afshin Rattansi, on RT Going Underground interviews Nils Melzer
On 24 Feb 2020, 01:22, Bridges for Media Freedom <bridges4media@icloud.com> wrote: Email: contact@bridgesforfreedom.mediaPhone: + 44 7717 618138 (Naomi) / +44 7501 673109 ** Under embargo until 03.00 GMT on Monday 24 February ** Parliamentarians travel to London to monitor Assange extraditionhearing * Delegations from Germany, Italy and the European Parliament will bein court on Monday; 10 … Continue reading “Bridges for Media Freedom : Parliamentarians travel to London to monitor Assange extradition hearing”
** Under embargo until 03.00 GMT on Monday 24 February **
Parliamentarians travel to London to monitor Assange extradition hearing
* Delegations from Germany, Italy and the European Parliament will be in court on Monday; 10 seats have been set aside for political monitors in Woolwich Crown Court
* 33 parliamentarians from twelve different European countries have joined the initiative, the largest of its kind ever seen in the UK
* Bridges for Media Freedom launches the Assange Court Report and will issue twice-daily updates from the hearing
33 parliamentarians from twelve different European countries have committed to monitor the Julian Assange extradition case which is due to begin in London this Monday, 24 February. WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is fighting extradition to the United States in an unprecedented Espionage Act prosecution for journalistic activity.
The monitoring group, which is organised by the freedom of expression project Bridges for Media Freedom includes parliamentarians from Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom.
The initiative, which also includes international NGOs Reporters Without Borders and International PEN, legal experts and medics is the largest of its kind ever put together in the United Kingdom.
In response to a series of letters which European politicians have written to the UK Ministry of Justice since November last year, Woolwich Crown Court has set ten seats aside for political monitors in the court’s media annexe.
– “He is to be buried alive in prison”
Die LINKE MPs Sevim Dagdelen and Heike Hänsel, both members of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the German Parliament, will be attending the Assange extradition hearing every day this week.
They said:
“Following the massive manipulations by the Swedish police and judicial authorities in the prosecution of Julian Assange, international monitoring by observers of the extradition proceedings brought by the USA against the journalist and founder of Wikileaks is more urgent than ever.
“The reports about the impunity offered by US President Donald Trump to Julian Assange in return for the assurance that the publication of confidential documents of the Democratic Party in the 2016 presidential campaign would have no connection with Russia underline once again the political instrumentalisation of the case. After his refusal, the journalist is now to be put on trial in the USA for publishing US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he faces up to 175 years imprisonment.
“The prison conditions, the restrictions on access to defense lawyers, and insufficient access to documents and a working computer, do not meet the conditions for a fair trial under the rule of law.
“An extradition of Julian Assange to the USA, where he is to be buried alive in prison, must be prevented. We demand the release of Julian Assange on bail so that he can recover from the consequences of his years of isolation in the Ecuadorian embassy and solitary confinement in Belmarsh in terms of his health and be able to defend himself adequately.”
– “we are joining the most authoritative institutional voices on human rights”
Italian Senator Gianni Marilotti, who is President of the Italian Parliamentary Intergroup for Monitoring the Assange case, will be attending court on Monday. He said:
“According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer, Assange has been subjected to sustained collective persecution, including threatening statements and incitement to violence against him. These and other human rights violations are not compatible with the foundations of the European democracies, which gave themselves laws based on the respect of the human being, a principle that will never be negotiable.
“The Council of Europe and its Human Rights Commissioner recently joined Melzer’s appeal, since the use of the Espionage Act against a publisher who is only accused of revealing real facts raises concerns about the protection of those ones that publish classified information in the public interest.
“As the Italian Parliamentarian Intergroup for the monitoring of the Assange case, we are aware we are joining the most authoritative institutional voices on human rights and freedom of the press.”
– “This case is a matter of democracy and human rights against secrecy and impunity”
Sira Rego MEP, who will be in court on Monday, said:
“We stand against the extradition of Julian Assange to the US because democracy is at risk. We are talking about protecting basic fundamental rights. The right of the people to know the true face of their governments.
“The assassination of the Reuters cameramen in Iraq and the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs showed the world how governments and especially the US Government commit crimes against humanity with total impunity. This case is a matter of democracy and human rights against secrecy and impunity.
“States, governments, international institutions must protect the people who work for us to know the truth. It is not not only Julian Assange’s life at stake today. It is Chelsea Manning’s, Glenn Greenwald’s, Edward Snowden’s and everyone who, like them, work to make our societies more transparent and just.”
MEPs Miguel Urban Crespo and Marketa Gregorova will also be in court on Monday. Seven further parliamentarians will be attending court later in the week.
– Bridges for Media Freedom launches the Assange Court Report
Bridges for Media Freedom will be issuing twice-daily updates from the proceedings. Reports, photography and video will be published on the Assange Court Report website (https://assangecourt.report). Reuse of this material is encouraged.
Julian Assange has been charged in the Eastern District of Virginia with 17 counts under the 1917 Espionage Act, all related to WikiLeaks publications of 2010-11. He also faces a further conspiracy charge related to journalist-source communications. EDVA is a judicial district located in the greater Washington DC metropolitan area.
On 21st February 2020 Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis reported
The senior judge overseeing the extradition proceedings of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange received financial benefits from two partner organisations of the British Foreign Office before her appointment
It can further be revealed that Lady Emma Arbuthnot was appointed Chief Magistrate in Westminster on the advice of a Conservative government minister with whom she had attended a secretive meeting organised by one of these Foreign Office partner organisations two years before.
Liz Truss, then Justice Secretary, “advised” the Queen to appoint Lady Arbuthnot in October 2016. Two years before, Truss — who is now Trade Secretary — and Lady Arbuthnot both attended an off-the-record two-day meeting in Bilbao, Spain.
The expenses were covered by an organisation called Tertulias, chaired by Lady Arbuthnot’s husband — Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, a former Conservative defence minister with extensive links to the British military and intelligence community exposed by WikiLeaks.
Tertulias, an annual forum held for political and corporate leaders in the UK and Spain, is regarded by the UK Foreign Office as one of its “partnerships”. The 2014 event in Bilbao was attended by David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, while the Foreign Office has in the past funded Lord Arbuthnot’s attendance at the forum.
The Foreign Office has long taken a strong anti-Assange position, rejecting UN findings in his favour, refusing to recognise the political asylum given to him by Ecuador, and even labelling Assange a “miserable little worm”.
Lady Arbuthnot also benefited financially from another trip with her husband in 2014, this time to Istanbul for the British-Turkish Tatlidil, a forum established by the UK and Turkish governments for “high level” individuals involved in politics and business.
Both Tertulias and Tatlidil are secretive gatherings about which little is known and are not obviously connected — but Declassified has discovered that the UK address of the two organisations has been the same.
Lady Arbuthnot personally presided over Assange’s case as judge from late 2017 until mid-2019, delivering two controversial rulings. Although she is no longer personally hearing the Assange extradition proceedings, she remains responsible for supporting and guiding the junior judges in her jurisdiction. Lady Arbuthnot has refused to declare any conflicts of interest in the case.
The new revelations follow previous investigations by Declassified showing that Lady Arbuthnot received gifts and hospitality in relation to her husband from a military and cybersecurity company exposed by WikiLeaks. Declassified also revealed that the Arbuthnots’ son is linked to an anti-data leak company created by the UK intelligence establishment and staffed by officials recruited from US intelligence agencies behind that country’s prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder.
The Arbuthnots and Liz Truss
Tertulias’ annual meetings between the UK and Spain have been held since 1989 but the organisation has no public presence and provides no record of events. Declassified found that its current president is Jose de Areilza, a Spanish law professor who is also a board member of the Spanish Ministry of Defence.
Lord Arbuthnot records that he became the unpaid chair of Tertulias in 2012, at which time he was also chair of parliament’s Defence Committee. Arbuthnot was then also a member of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy and chair of Conservative Friends of Israel.
In October 2014, Liz Truss, who was then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), attended the Tertulias meeting in Bilbao, alongside the Arbuthnots, Lidington and at least four other British MPs.
Lord and Lady Arbuthnot spent two days at the event and received expenses worth £1,488.20 from Tertulias. Although having attended the annual event regularly since 2000, this was the first time Lord Arbuthnot recorded in his parliamentary register of interests the attendance of his wife. At the time Lady Arbuthnot was deputy senior district judge. The reason for her attending a meeting described by Lord Arbuthnot as “bringing MPs, business people, academics and artists together to discuss topical issues” is not clear.
Liz Truss was in Bilbao for three days and accrued expenses of £1,235.48 paid by Tertulias. Her flight cost £825.48, suggesting she was flown first class. By contrast, Nick Boles MP charged £178.98 for his flight. The funders of Tertulias and Tatlidil are not known.
The trip to Bilbao was one of only three Truss has accepted from third parties since becoming an MP in 2010. She also joined a group of Conservative MPs on a trip to Berlin in 2011 and attended in 2019 the annual forum of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a highly secretive meeting organised by the most influential neoconservative think tank in Washington populated by senior US military and intelligence officials.
Declassified recently revealed how the AEI, which has a strongly anti-Assange position, has been courting British ministers for years.
. . .
Lady Arbuthnot’s rulings
Lady Arbuthnot’s husband is a key figure in the British military and intelligence establishment — a highly controversial issue given that Lady Arbuthnot has made rulings in the Assange case and continues to oversee it as chief magistrate.
Lord Arbuthnot was from 2016-17 a director of SC Strategy, a consultancy created by Sir John Scarlett, the former head of MI6 who had been behind the “dodgy dossier” used by Tony Blair to push for war with Iraq.
Arbuthnot is currently the chair of the advisory board of arms corporation Thales UK and board member of Montrose Associates, a “strategic intelligence” consultancy, whose president is former Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd.
Lady Arbuthnot has refused to formally recuse herself from the Assange case. A judiciary spokesman has said, “There has been no bias demonstrated by the chief magistrate. The chief magistrate, however, is aware of the judicial conduct guidance that advises on avoiding the perception of bias and is not hearing the case”.
It is unclear what “perception of bias” Lady Arbuthnot accepts and on what basis she stepped aside from personally hearing the case.
The chief magistrate’s role includes “supporting and guiding district judge colleagues”, including Vanessa Baraitser, who ruled on the case in 2019. Lady Arbuthnot is also likely to have approved of Baraitser’s appointment to hear the Assange case.
Her previous rulings on Assange cannot be revisited by the defence when she fails to declare a conflict of interest.
Lady Arbuthnot’s first ruling on Assange was made in February 2018 while he was a political asylee in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Assange’s lawyers had applied to have his British arrest warrant withdrawn.
Assange had never been charged with a crime, and in May 2017 the Swedish proceedings had been discontinued along with the European Arrest Warrant. The warrant related to Assange skipping bail to claim asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, where the Ecuadorian government agreed that he was at risk of political persecution in the United States.
Arbuthnot refused the request. Her ruling was irregular, dismissing Assange’s fears of US extradition and the findings of the UN. “I accept that Mr Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but… I do not find that Mr Assange’s fears were reasonable,” she said.
“I give little weight to the views of the Working Group,” she added, referring to the United Nations body which termed Assange’s condition one of “arbitrary detention”. “I do not find that Mr Assange’s stay in the Embassy is inappropriate, unjust, unpredictable, unreasonable, unnecessary or disproportionate.”
When he was grabbed from the Ecuadorian embassy by British police in April 2019, district judge Michael Snow pilloried Assange’s claims that Lady Arbuthnot was conflicted: “His assertion that he has not had a fair hearing is laughable. And his behaviour is that of a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interests,” Snow told the court.
Lady Arbuthnot made her most recent ruling on Assange in June 2019. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser — who is still overseen by Lady Arbuthnot — will rule on the extradition proceedings which begin on 25 February.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF), also known as Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) press conference outside Belmarsh Prison with John Shipton, Yanis Varoufakis and Christophe Deloire John Shipton reports “Bail ought to be given immediately if the extradition order is not dropped. Julian has been harassed today. He goes to court tomorrow and they searched his cell this afternoon just … Continue reading “Reporters Without Borders Press Conference at Belmarsh Prison”
John Shipton reports “Bail ought to be given immediately if the extradition order is not dropped. Julian has been harassed today. He goes to court tomorrow and they searched his cell this afternoon just before he came to see us. This is plain malice that emanates from the Crown Prosecution Service to Julian Assange must stop immediately ”
Editors Note: 40,000 pages in a nutshell When:Part 1: 24th February -28th FebruaryPart 2: 18th May – 5th June Where: Woolwich Crown Court/Belmarsh Magistrate’s Court, which is adjacent to HMP Belmarsh (See end of this briefing for travel advice). Magistrate: Vanessa Baraitser Defence team: Solicitor Gareth Peirce (Birnberg, Peirce & Partners), lead Barristers Edward Fitzgerald QC, Doughty Street Chambers, Mark … Continue reading “USA v Julian Assange Extradition Hearing”
Editors Note: 40,000 pages in a nutshell
When: Part 1: 24th February -28th FebruaryPart 2: 18th May – 5th June
Where: Woolwich Crown Court/Belmarsh Magistrate’s Court, which is adjacent to HMP Belmarsh (See end of this briefing for travel advice).
Magistrate: Vanessa Baraitser
Defence team: Solicitor Gareth Peirce (Birnberg, Peirce & Partners), lead Barristers Edward Fitzgerald QC, Doughty Street Chambers, Mark Summers QC, Matrix Chambers
The US is seeking to imprison Julian Assange for obtaining and publishing the 2010/2011 leaks, which exposed the reality of the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror”: Collateral Murder (Rules of Engagement), Afghan War Diaries, Iraq War Logs, Cablegate, and The Guantanamo Files.
The US began its criminal investigation against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in early 2010. After several years, the Obama administration decided not to prosecute WikiLeaks because of the precedent that this would set against media organisations. In January 2017, the campaign to free Mr. Assange’s alleged source Chelsea Manning was successful and President Obama gave her a presidential commutation and freed her from prison.
In August 2017 an attempt was made under the Trump administration to pressure Mr. Assange into saying things that would be politically helpful to the President. After Mr. Assange did not comply, he was indicted by the Trump Administration and the extradition request was set in motion. Chelsea Manning was re-imprisoned due to her refusal to cooperate with the grand jury against WikiLeaks.
President Trump has declared that the press is “the enemy of the people” (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/business/trump-calls-the-news-media-the-enemy-of-the- people.html). It is the first time the 1917 Espionage Act has been used to indict a publisher or journalist. Press Freedom organisations have emphasised that the indictment criminalizes normal newsgathering behaviour. The indictment applies the Espionage Act extraterritorially. Assange was publishing from the United Kingdom in partnership with UK media and other European and US press. The indictment opens the door for other journalists involved in the 2010 publications to be prosecuted. The USA will make the extraordinary claim that foreigners are not entitled to constitutional protections, so Julian Assange cannot benefit from the First Amendment.
FAQs
Will Julian be in court? Yes, he will be present in the court room every day. Julian Assange is on remand in HMP Belmarsh, next to the courthouse.
What are the charges against Julian? Seventeen charges under the 1917 Espionage Act for obtaining and publishing classified information, and one charge under the Computers Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The CFAA indictment was unsealed on 11 April 2019. On May 23rd, the Trump Administration unveiled a superceding indictment adding 170 years to Assange’s potential sentence.
What is the potential sentence? 175 years. Espionage Act: 170 years. CFAA: 5 years.
The Rules of Engagement were published alongside the video depicting a war crime perpetrated by the US army. The US military had conducted an internal investigation which concluded the US military acted in accordance with its own Rules of Engagement for Iraq. Yet the video shows a war crime being committed under international law.
WikiLeaks published the Collateral Murder video alongside the Rules of Engagement for Iraq for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings. The fact the US military had classed the actions as lawful when they were clearly illegal was a central part of the publication.
Guantanamo Files/GITMO Files, referred to by the US prosecution as “Guantanamo Detainee Assessment Briefs” https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/
Surely if Assange is extradited, he can argue that he published in the public interest? No. There is no public interest defence under the Espionage Act.
What conditions would he be placed under in the United States? If extradited, Julian Assange will be placed under “Special Administrative Measures” (SAMS) which are far more restrictive than the UK’s most restrictive conditions. He will be in solitary confinement, in a small cell. He will not be permitted any contact with family. He will only able to speak to his lawyers, who will not be able to transmit any messages from him or themselves face criminal charges. Such conditions are a living death sentence.
Can Assange rely on the First Amendment? The Trump Administration has stated that Julian Assange has no First Amendment rights (free speech and free press) because he is a foreigner national. Hence, US criminal laws apply abroad but US constitutional protections do not. This means that all journalists, anywhere in the world, risk US prosecution if they publish something the US government considers to be in violation of its laws.
But surely US laws do not apply in the UK where Assange was publishing from? Julian Assange published the 2010/2011 publications in the UK and Europe. The extradition is a test of sovereignty. The US-UK extradition treaty is centre stage.
Doesn’t the US-UK Extradition Treaty exclude “political offences” Yes. Espionage is a classical political offence. The UK executive had a chance to throw out the extradition request before it reached the courts. Instead, the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid certified the US request. It is now up to the judge to determine whether the extradition should be thrown out on these grounds.
Is Assange charged with hacking? No. The indictment makes no claim that Assange “hacked” anything. In fact, the indictment makes no mention of “hacking”. The “hacking” language comes from a press release from the US prosecution office announcing Assange’s indictment on 11 April 2019. The charge is that Julian Assange allegedly agreed to try to help Manning log into her work computers (which she already had access to) using a different username so that she could maintain her anonymity. https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedoms/
But doesn’t the US allege that Assange went beyond what ‘normal’ journalists do by helping Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access? No. The US allegation is that Assange agreed to attempt to help Manning use a different login with the same security access. This extremely flimsy allegation is made using the CFAA, a statute thatis vague, outdated and overlord, and does not clearly define what “computer intrusion” actually means. This lack of clarity in the legislation has led to the statute having been used for political purposes before, and US courts and the US government has even interpreted the CFAA to include consensual password sharing or web scraping by data journalists (https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/, https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/12-8-2019-Leaks-Chart-1.pdf). As Assange’s US criminal defence lawyer put it, the “factual allegations boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/assange-indictment.html
Does the US indictment criminalise normal journalistic activities? Yes. The US allegations that Julian Assange coordinated with Manning on the receipt and publication of classified documents (Counts 2-14 of the indictment). The Espionage Act (which was formulated in 1917, in relation to espionage) is now being applied to a journalist communicating with a source. The Espionage Act states that someone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures, or “willfully causes,” an offense to be committed can be punished as the offender. Counts 15-17 concern what the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press call “pure publication”. To fit the language of the Espionage Act, the indictment alleges that Julian Assange “communicated” reports from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and the State Department cables, “by publishing [the documents] on the internet.” The RCFP calls this a “profoundly troubling legal theory, one rarely contemplated and never successfully deployed. Under those counts, the JusticeDepartment now seeks to punish the pure act of publication of newsworthy government secrets under the nation’s spying laws.” It calls this theory a “dire threat” to newsgathering and the “pure publication” counts a “direct threat to news reporting. https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/12-8-2019-Leaks-Chart-1.pdfhttps://www.lawfareblog.com/assange-indictment-seeks-punish-pure-publication https://www.rcfp.org/may-2019-assange-indictment-analysis/https://www.rcfp.org/may-2019-assange-indictment-analysis/
The US alleges that the 2010 publications have resulted in harm. Is there any evidence of this? The “harm” rhetoric by the US aims to distract from the tens of thousands of named victims of extrajudicial killings, torture, war crimes, and other hard evidence of human rights violations revealed in the publications by WikiLeaks and its publishing partners. The US military and current or former administration officials are guilty of many of the crimes that WikiLeaks has exposed, none of which has been prosecuted. During the Manning Court Martial, the United States stated under oath that they had not found any person who had been killed as a result of the publications. Ten years on, the US still has not been able to produce any evidence that anyone has been seriously harmed as a result of the Iraq War Logs, the Afghan War Logs, and the 2010 diplomatic cables. The public rhetoric by the US government contrasts with its internal briefs and assessments, as Reuters reported in 2011: “A congressional official briefed on the reviews said the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in orderto bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers. . . . ‘We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging,’ said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials.” (Reuters, “U.S. officials privately say WikiLeaks damage limited,” Reuters, January 18, 2011 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-damage/u-s-officials-privately-say-wikileaks- damage-limited-idUSTRE70H6TO20110118 )
What role does the Spanish case of illegal spying on lawyers play in this extradition case? Evidence is being investigated in Spain which involves United States agencies, specifically unlawful acts committed against Mr. Assange and his lawyers, which make a fair trial in the United States impossible and which make the extradition abusive. Whistleblowers in Spain who worked for the security company hired by Ecuador to man the Ecuadorian embassy stepped forward last year, leading to a criminal complaint that is now in the hands of the Spanish High Court or Audiencia Nacional, being led by the judge de la Mata. The whistleblowers have given evidence that the company’s director was carrying out espionage on Julian Assange’s lawyers for US intelligence via the head of security of Sheldon Adelson, Trump’s biggest financial backer, a casino magnate who owns the company Las Vegas Sands. The Spanish company installed hidden microphones and cameras that surreptitiously recorded sound, opening visiting journalists’ and doctors’ cellphones to copy serial numbers and IMEI codes, an attempt to steal a baby’s DNA, physical surveillance, breaking into lawyers’ offices, and more. The Spanish company’s spying coincides with New York Times reports of Mike Pompeo’s (then CIA director) “more aggressive efforts to try to disrupt WikiLeaks” which made “some lawmakers express[] discomfort.” CIA director Mike Pompeo vowed to “take down” WikiLeaks, calling WikiLeaks a “hostile non-state intelligence service”. https://web.archive.org/web/20181117193457/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/trump-administration-assange-wikileaks.html
Does it matter if Julian Assange is a journalist? Julian Assange has been a card-holding member of the Journalist Union of Australia MEAA for more than a decade, and has received the highest journalistic award bestowed in his country, the Walkley Award, which is the equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. He is also a member of the International Federation of Journalists and has won dozens of journalism awards. The discussion about whether Julian Assange is a journalist is irrelevant, because the activities that the US has indicted him over are normal journalistic activities, therefore the precedent that is being set affects all journalists. https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/12/03/the-fate-of-journalism-and-julian-assange/ https://www.walkleys.com/board-statement-4-16/https://defend.wikileaks.org/wikileaks/
Can Julian Assange get a fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia? The court that will hear Julian Assange’s case is the “national security” court of the United States. The jury pool is drawn from Virginia, which is a small state which headquarters the CIA andnational security contractors. Former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on CIA waterboarding and prosecuted under the Espionage Act for exposing torture, was tried and convicted in this court. John Kiriakou on the prospects of Assange getting a fair trial in the Eastern District Court of Virginia: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-24/cia-whistleblower-assange-going-get- railroaded-hanging-judge
Has Donald Trump said anything about the prosecution of Assange over the Manning leaks? In 2010, Donald Trump said that Julian Assange should “face the death penalty” over the Manning publications.
Selected Commentary on the Prosecution of Julian Assange:
New York Times Editorial board “With this indictment, the Trump administration has chosen to go well beyond the question ofhacking to directly challenge the boundaries of the First Amendment. This case now represents athreat to freedom of expression and, with it, the resilience of American democracy itself.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/opinion/julian-assange-wikileaks.html
Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron: “With the new indictment of Julian Assange, the government is advancing a legal argument that places such important work in jeopardy and undermines the very purpose of the First Amendment.The administration has gone from denigrating journalists as ‘enemies of the people’ to now criminalizing common practices in journalism that have long served the public interest. Meantime, government officials continue to engage in a decades-long practice of overclassifying information, often for reasons that have nothing to do with national security and a lot to do with shielding themselves from the constitutionally protected scrutiny of the press.” https://thehill.com/homenews/media/445426-washington-post-new-york-times-editors-blast-assange-indictment
Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Matt Murray: “the indictment’s use of the Espionage Act raises deeply troubling implications for traditionaljournalism and freedom of the press in this country. The right to publish uncomfortable, important information that the government would prefer to be kept secret is central to a truly free press.”
USA Today Editor-in-Chief Nicole Carroll: “Investigative journalists routinely obtain and publish information the government would like kept secret. This indictment threatens such reporting and is a chilling attack on press freedoms and thepublic’s right to know.”
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic “In view of both the press freedom implications and the serious concerns over the treatment Julian Assange would be subjected to in the United States, my assessment as Commissioner for Human Rights is that he should not be extradited.” https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/julian-assange-should-not-be-extradited-due-to- potential-impact-on-press-freedom-and-concerns-about-ill-treatment Council of Europe Alert on Journalists in jail (UK): Julian Assange https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 2317 (2020) “consider that the detention and criminal prosecution of Mr Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, and join the recommendation of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment who declared, on 1 November 2019, that Mr Assange’s extradition to the United States must be barred and that he must be promptly released” http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=28508&lang=en
Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press “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” https://www.rcfp.org/may-2019-assange-indictment-analysis/
Committee to Protect Journalists “Taken together, the 18 counts in the DOJ indictment criminalize key reporting practices and the publication of information obtained through them. And the extraterritorial application of the U.S. Espionage Act means that any journalist anywhere in the world could potentially be prosecuted for publishing classified information. A successful prosecution would chillwhistleblowers and investigative reporting. This is why CPJ opposes Assange’s extradition.” https://cpj.org/blog/2019/12/press-freedom-julian-assange-wikileaks-defend.php
Amnesty International’s Deputy Europe Director, Massimo Moratti: “All charges underpinning the US extradition request should be dropped to allow for JulianAssange’s prompt release. If the charges against him are not dropped, the UK authorities are under aclear and unequivocal obligation not to send him to the USA where he could suffer serious human rights violations. Julian Assange could face detention conditions in the USA that amount to torture and other ill-treatment, including prolonged solitary confinement. The risk of an unfair trial is very real given the targeted public campaign against him undertaken by US officials at the highest levels, which has severely undermined his right to be presumed innocent.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/02/usuk-drop-charges-and-halt-extradition-of-julian-assange/
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) General Secretary, Christophe Deloire “If Assange is tried under the Espionage Act, he will even be denied the possibility of demonstrating that the information he revealed served the public interest. These proceedings violate the US Constitution. The democratic example set by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin is in danger.” https://rsf.org/en/news/assanges-extradition-us-would-threaten-work-all-journalists
Commentators
First Amendment James Goodale, lawyer for the New York Times for the Pentagon Papers Jack Goldsmith, Harvard Law Professor, head the Office of Legal Counsel under the Bush Administration (Department of Justice) 2003-2004, which provides legal guidance to the president and all executive branch agencies. Ben Wizner, American Civil Liberties Union
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Electronic Frontier Foundation Lauri Love
US Intelligence John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.) Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
Torture UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer
Spying in the Ecuadorian embassy, US-Ecuador relations Fidel Narvaez, former consul of Ecuador in the United Kingdom Guillaume Long, former Foreign Minister of Ecuador
How to get to Court
o Bus: From Woolwich Arsenal Station catch the 244/380 bus to the prison. The bus stops are situated directly outside the exit from the railway station.
o Train: The nearest stations are Woolwich Arsenal and Plumstead. Catch a bus from Woolwich Arsenal station to the prison, or walk from Plumstead station (contact the visitor centre for details).
o Approach from M25 Dartford Bridge/Tunnel:
Heading South – over Bridge: Take first slip road immediately after tolls, (NB head for 4 left hand tolls when coming over the bridge). Signposted A206. First exit at roundabout and come over the motorway. Then to * (below):
Heading North – towards tunnel: Take last exit (Junction 1) before tunnel signposted A206 Crayford/Erith. Then to * (below):
*:
Roundabout over M25 – signposted A206 Crayford/ Erith. University Way.
Roundabout end of University Way/ dual carriageway signposted A206 Crayford /Erith.
Series of roundabouts signposted A2016 Thamesmead, Plumstead, Woolwich
Dual carriageway towards Thamesmead, roundabout signposted Western Way
Signpost to Belmarsh and Courts – left slip road at traffic lights.
o Approach from Woolwich: Proceed along Plumstead Road, turn left into Pettman Crescent (just before Plumstead Bus Garage) then take the second left at the traffic lights into Western Way. Belmarsh is situated approximately half a mile down on the right-hand side. Follow signs for HMP Belmarsh and Courts.
o Approach from Plumstead: Proceed along Plumstead High Street, turn right into Pettman Crescent (just after Plumstead Bus Garage) then take the second left at the traffic lights into Western Way. Belmarsh is situated approximately half a mile down on the right-hand side. Follow signs for HMP Belmarsh and Courts.
On the 20th February 2020 Anthony Bellanger writes John Shipton, Julian Assange’s indefatigable father, armed with a smile, stood tall at the Palais des Académies in Brussels on 29 January 2020, at a ceremony awarding four Academic Honoris Causa by the Belgian network of academics, Carta Academica. The event was organised in honour of whistleblowers Chelsea … Continue reading “Why supporting Julian Assange means defending freedom of information”
John Shipton, Julian Assange’s indefatigable father, armed with a smile, stood tall at the Palais des Académies in Brussels on 29 January 2020, at a ceremony awarding four Academic Honoris Causa by the Belgian network of academics, Carta Academica. The event was organised in honour of whistleblowers Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden and journalists Sarah Harrison and Julian Assange, who “each in their own way, have put their freedom and even their lives at risk to defend press freedom, freedom of expression and our right to information”.
Speaking before an audience of human rights and freedoms defenders, the Wikileaks founder’s father tirelessly insists that his son is in prison for exposing crimes committed by others. “In my country, Australia, but also in Sweden, the United Kingdom or the United States, it is usually reprehensible to conceal the truth, especially when it is about crimes.”
. . .
First hearing: Monday 24 February
On 24 February 2020, the first part of the hearing to decide on possible extradition to the United States will be opened for one week in the United Kingdom, before resuming for three weeks on Monday 18 May. “If Assange is extradited to the United States, he has no chance of a fair trial,” UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer told the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 27 January. “Assange will be subjected to the same kind of summary justice as that seen in the United Kingdom a few months ago: a criminal trial, without any opportunity to prepare his defence. A summary hearing, of the kind we are seeing today in Turkey: 15 minutes, not one more. A quarter of an hour after entering the courtroom, Julian Assange was convicted, and even called ‘narcissistic’ by the judge.” Melzer was able to visit Assange in prison on 9 May 2019 and came away convinced that the case was highly politicised.
In his report for the United Nations, the special rapporteur describes the treatment received by Assange as “psychological torture”, after seven difficult years in the embassy. He said that there was no justification for having held Assange in virtual isolation for the nine months up until January of this year, recalling that, beyond 15 days, prolonged isolation is considered to be psychological torture.
The UK government refrained from answering the awkward questions posed by the UN special rapporteur, just as it remained silent when the Council of Europe questioned it following the publication of an alert issued by the International and the European Federation of Journalists on the Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists, denouncing the arbitrary and disproportionate detention regime imposed on Julian Assange.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, representing 47 member states, stated in a resolution issued on 28 January regarding threats to media freedom and journalists’ security, that “the detention and criminal prosecution of Mr Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent for journalists” and urged member states to “prevent any misuse of different laws or provisions which may impact on media freedom – such as those on defamation, anti-terrorism, national security, public order, hate speech, blasphemy or memory laws – which are too often applied to intimidate and silence journalists”.
On the 15th February 2020 ABC/Reuters reported United States President Donald Trump says he has “the legal right” to interfere in criminal cases, which has raised questions about the independence of the American judicial system. In the US, the executive, judiciary and legislature are supposed to be independent of each other, to ensure there are … Continue reading “Donald Trump says he has the ‘legal right’ to interfere in criminal cases”
On the 15th February 2020 ABC/Reuters reported
United States President Donald Trump says he has “the legal right” to interfere in criminal cases, which has raised questions about the independence of the American judicial system.
In the US, the executive, judiciary and legislature are supposed to be independent of each other, to ensure there are enough checks and balances to prevent an abuse of power by the Government of the day.
But Mr Trump’s criticism of the judge, jury and prosecutors in the criminal case of his long-time adviser Roger Stone has thrown this balance into question.
Editors Note: Does this raise the possibility of Trump intervening in the case against Julian Assange if he were to be deported to the United States?
Editors Reflections:
A Sondergericht (plural: Sondergerichte) was a German “special court”. After taking power in 1933, the Nazis quickly moved to remove internal opposition to the Nazi regime in Germany. The legal system became one of many tools for this aim and the Nazis gradually supplanted the normal justice system with political courts with wide-ranging powers. The function of the special courts was to intimidate the German public, but as they expanded their scope and took over roles previously done by ordinary courts such as Amtsgerichte this function became diluted.
Sydney Criminal Lawyer’s write “When Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, he wasn’t about to let the judiciary get in the way of his aspirations for absolute power . . . After gaining power, Hitler took it upon himself to ‘coordinate’ the judicial system in order to ensure it was in line with Nazi ideals and objectives. No longer were courts independent, or a check against government abuses of power – they quickly became just another mechanism for Hitler to consolidate his dictatorship.
Mr Wilkie Mission Statement 11th Feb 2. Sky News: Interview with Mr Wilkie 12th Feb 3. Wilkie and Christensen discussions with Nils Melzer 17th Feb Andrew Wilkie MP tweets “In London and we met with UN Special Rapporteur on Torture @NilsMelzer to discuss Julian Assange. Nils left us in no doubt that Assange is showing … Continue reading “Wilkie and Christensen: UK Expedition Extraordinaire”
Mr Wilkie Mission Statement 11th Feb
2. Sky News: Interview with Mr Wilkie 12th Feb
3. Wilkie and Christensen discussions with Nils Melzer 17th Feb
Andrew Wilkie MP tweets “In London and we met with UN Special Rapporteur on Torture @NilsMelzer to discuss Julian Assange. Nils left us in no doubt that Assange is showing the effects of psychological torture and feels betrayed by the justice system in the UK, the USA & Aus #auspol#politas#FreeAssange“
Christensen, Melzer and Wilkie
4. Ruptly: Press Scrum outside Belmarsh Prison 18th Feb
From within that Press Scrum outside Belmarsh Prison (Christensen, Wilkie and John Shipton)
5. Sky News: Catch up with Mr Wilkie 18th Feb
6. ABC News coverage at Belmarsh Prison with Christensen Wilkie and Jennifer Robinson18th Feb
7. ABC News coverage with Joyce, Wilkie, Christensen and Shipton Editors Note: ABC News is confused about Julians current prison status. Julian is an unconvicted prisoner and the status is ‘awaiting extradition’ or remand.
Andrew Wilkie MP tweets “Impressed today by British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn’s clear position & strong leadership on Julian Assange. This is what we need from Australian Labor Party right now where precious few members are prepared to take a stand over Assange injustice #auspol#politas#FreeAssange“
Andrew Wilkie with Jeremy Corbyn
9. Press Conference Feb 19
Andrew Wilkie MP tweets “One of my press conferences today in London. The world is watching what happens to Julian Assange. Beyond time for Scott Morrison to pick up the phone to Boris Johnson and Donald Trump and bring #Assange home. #politas#auspol“
Editors Note: The apparent difference in foreign press interest to Australian press interest.
Press Scrum on John Shipton after press conference
10. Alan Jones interviews Mr Christensen on Return Feb 29
Alan and George talk about many things including: – trials and tribulations just getting to see Julian in Belmarsh Prison. – a fellow prison who points to Julian when he walks in and says very loudly to Andrew and George “They’re doing really bad stuff to him. They’re doing really bad stuff to him, mate. He shouldn’t really be here.” – the role Scott Morrison could play
Editors Note: Alan Jones mistakenly refers to rape charges being dropped. No charges were ever made in the Swedish investigation.
Mohamed Elmaazi writes on the 12th February 2020 Leader of the UK opposition Jeremy Corbyn challenged Boris Johnson as to whether he agrees with a resolution by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly that WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange should not be extradited to the US. Corbyn’s query was part of a wider debate over what he called Britain’s “lopsided” … Continue reading “Jeremy Corbyn Asks Boris Johnson If He Agrees Julian Assange’s Extradition Must Be Opposed”
Mohamed Elmaazi writes on the 12th February 2020
Leader of the UK opposition Jeremy Corbyn challenged Boris Johnson as to whether he agrees with a resolution by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly that WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange should not be extradited to the US.
Corbyn’s query was part of a wider debate over what he called Britain’s “lopsided” extradition treaty with the US, during Prime Minister’s Questions on 12 February 2020.
“This deep disparity with the US is about to be laid bare when the courts decide whether the WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange will be extradited to the US on charges of espionage for exposing of war crimes, the murder of civilians and large scale corruption”. Corbyn said.
Corbyn went on to ask Johnson whether he agreed with a report from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe “that the extradition should be opposed and the rights of journalists and whistleblowers upheld for the good of all of us”.
Johnson refused to comment on Assange’s case, but noted that it is “obvious” that the rights of journalists and whistleblowers should be upheld, adding that the government “will continue to do that”.
