TEHRAN An Australian academic says that killing unlawfully 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners by Australian Special Forces is just the tip of the iceberg.

Noting that Brereton Report did not touch on any of the earlier reported crimes, Professor Tim Anderson tells the Tehran Times that the 39 murders identified by the Australian Brereton Report are certainly only the tip of the iceberg.The Brereton inquiry is a long-running investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan. The investigation was led by Paul Brereton, who is both a New South Wales Supreme Court judge and a major general in the army reserve.Anderson, the distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, predicts the Australian government will try to maintain the war crime scandal under secrecy.The government will further hide any trial process on national security, he adds.The following is the text of the interview:

Q: How do you assess the repercussions of the Brereton Report revealing that Australian military forces in Afghanistan murdered and tortured prisoners, farmers, or civilians between 2009 to 2013?

A: When it comes to the U.S., British and Australian crimes in Afghanistan we should look at the full 19 years from 2001 to 2020. Remember, a war of aggression is the mother of all war crimes. The imperial soldier is necessarily programmed to commit atrocities, against people he does not understand, as he is not defending his country. He requires a fundamentally different mentality to the patriot who defends his country. Imperial commanders understand this, and train their troops accordingly, in notorious desensitization techniques.

The 39 murders identified by the Australian Brereton Report are certainly only the tip of the iceberg, so far as Australian crimes in Afghanistan are concerned, and before we get to the crimes in Iraq and Syria. Details of what are said to be the worst crimes in the Brereton Report have not yet been made public and, so far as I can see, the report did not touch on any of the earlier reported crimes, such as Australian complicity in the murder of ten Sabri tribespeople (mostly teenagers) on 16 May 2002, and the massacre of between one thousand and three thousand prisoners, people who were suffocated in shipping containers, after U.S. operation Anaconda operation at Shah-i-Kot, in March 2002.I mention just these two incidents from the early part of the war and occupation. They were not addressed by the Brereton report.

Q: Australian Federal Police (AFP) raided the offices of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) over a 2017 investigative report based on leaked military documents. How do you measure the Australian Judiciary and polices treatment of possible war crimes committed by Australian forces in Afghanistan?

A: Initially the AFP moved to prosecute journalists, including Daniel Oakes, who had published material provided to them by Australian army whistleblower Major David McBride. (In this sense McBride was our Bradley Manning and Oakes was our Julian Assange) However, the AFP has since decided to not proceed against Oakes but to maintain criminal charges against McBride. Charges against the soldiers have yet to be laid and are already subject to secrecy, with the suspicion that the government will further hide any trial process on national security grounds. The Australian government has already undermined the recommendation to withdraw an honorable citation from one army group and has become obsessed with defending itself from criticism that has come from China. As with the Australian Air Force slaughter of 126 Syrian soldiers in September 2016 (in support of an ISIS operation), this government seems to think it can dispose of its responsibility for shocking war crimes by simply saying sorry, mistake, and forgetting the whole thing.

Q: Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission called for the UK "to open an independent public inquiry to review and investigate the allegations of unlawful killings by UK Special Forces". It seems that there are more possible instances of a war crime. What do you think?

A: It is very important that Afghan institutions assume responsibility for such things, however much we might doubt the capacity of the current regime in Kabul, dependent as it is on the U.S. and other occupation forces. Local authorities will certainly be aware of other crimes reported by Afghan citizens, who can only seek accountability through Afghan institutions. They will never find accountability through U.S., British, Australian, or any other sort of occupation force.

Q: Do you think Australian authorities will urgently investigate war crime allegations? The Australian prime minister has stated that the issue is complicated, which means there are efforts to prolong the investigation process.

A: Public and private obstruction of the Australian processes is already underway. The government has shown it is keen to keep control of the process and not allow it to be internationalized. No charges have yet been laid and we have reason to fear a cover-up.

They will prolong and obfuscate but it is hard for them to totally bury some of the hideous and now public details. For example, the Brereton report (p.120) says Australian soldiers slit Afghan children's throats: "members from the SASR ... saw two 14-year-old boys whom they decided might be Taliban sympathizers. They stopped, searched the boys, and slit their throats. The rest of the Troop then had to clean up the mess, which involved bagging the bodies and throwing them into a nearby river". (https://afghanistaninquiry.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/IGADF-Afghanistan-Inquiry-Public-Release-Version.pdf)

Q: How was the Afghans reaction to the possible war crimes by Australian Special Forces in their territory?

A: I cannot really say, I have just heard that there is the outrage, I imagine not so much at the fact that horrific crimes have been committed they know that - but that there has been yet another exposure of these crimes and they fear that, once again, they will be denied justice and accountability.

Q: What is the Australian motive in participating in the wars that the United States start once in a while? Does it serve Australian security or the economy?

A: Canberra turned to Washington in 1942, when Britain abandoned its colony in Singapore in face of a Japanese advance. Australia swapped one big brother for another and we have paid a heavy process for this protection by participating in every war since, from Korea through Vietnam to the multiple New Middle East wars. Our ferocious pro-war media (run by a few giant investment cartels) has normalized war to the point where Australian people are either numbed or intimidated and fearful to speak out. This has seriously undermined our democracy. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (with support from another former PM, Malcolm Turnbull) recently created a petition which calls for an inquiry into the impact of the Murdoch media on Australian democracy. The Murdoch media has backed every U.S. war in living memory. Engagement with U.S. driven wars now has Australia at odds with its major trade partner China. U.S. dependence is a truly toxic relationship.

Go here to see the original:

Murder of 39 Afghans by Australian soldiers only 'tip of the iceberg': professor - Tehran Times

LONDON (AP) Julian Assanges partner, Stella Moris, has tweeted President Donald Trump on Thanksgiving, appealing to him to pardon the WikiLeaks founder.

Moris posted a photo of their two young children on Twitter Thursday and wrote: These are Julians sons Max and Gabriel. They need their father. Our family needs to be whole again.

I beg you, please bring him home for Christmas, she added.

Assange, 49, remains in a high-security British prison cell as he awaits a judges decision about whether he can be sent to the U.S. to face espionage charges.

Moris said he has been confined exclusively to his cell for over a week because of a coronavirus outbreak on his prison block.

Assange attended four weeks of an extradition hearing at Londons Central Criminal Court in September and October. The judge overseeing the case said she would deliver her decision on Jan.4.

U.S. prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks publication of secret American military documents a decade ago. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.

Assanges defense team argues that he is a journalist and entitled to First Amendment protections for publishing leaked documents that exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also say the conditions he would face in a U.S. prison would breach his human rights.

Assange jumped bail in 2012 and sought asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which ended up becoming his home for seven years before he was evicted and subsequently arrested. He has been in a London prison since April 2019.

Continue reading here:
Julian Assange's partner appeals to Trump to pardon him - The Associated Press

Whatever your views on the rights and wrongs of the Julian Assange case whether he should be in prison at all or be extradited to the United States there can be no one who would want to see him perish in an English prison from coronavirus. But the wing where he is incarcerated, in a maximum-security jail, is stricken with the virus. This has caused alarm across Britain the idea that the worlds most famous political prisoner might die on our watch, in our jail is making some people decidedly nervous. His family and friends are, of course, increasingly pressing the alarm button, but so too are medical professionals from around the world. One of the many campaigns is Doctors for Assange. So, from Germany, Professor Thomas Schulze joined Sputnik to tell us about their concerns for Julian Assanges both physical and mental well-being.

From the extradition of Julian Assange which might well happen, to the case of Anne Sacoolas whose extradition looks very unlikely. Having been previously told by the DPP that she did not have diplomatic immunity, Anne Sacoolas extradition was sought so she could stand trial for killing Harry Dunn while driving on the wrong side of the road. However, this week a court ruled that Anne Sacoolas did, after all, have diplomatic immunity and therefore, when she fled the country to avoid justice, she was deemed to be within her rights to do so. Harrys family have been tirelessly seeking justice for their son and will continue the fight, to hear more about the campaign we invited its spokesman Radd Seiger, onto Sputnik to tell us whats next for the family.

Follow@RT_sputnik

Podcasthttps://soundcloud.com/rttv/sets/sputnik-orbiting-the-world

Originally posted here:
Julian Assange and Harry Dunn (E360) RT Sputnik Orbiting the World - RT

ByThe Associated Press

November 26, 2020, 5:37 PM

2 min read

LONDON -- Julian Assanges partner, Stella Moris, has tweeted President Donald Trump on Thanksgiving, appealing to him to pardon the WikiLeaks founder.

Moris posted a photo of their two young children on Twitter Thursday and wrote: These are Julians sons Max and Gabriel. They need their father. Our family needs to be whole again.

I beg you, please bring him home for Christmas, she added.

Assange, 49, remains in a high-security British prison cell as he awaits a judge's decision about whether he can be sent to the U.S. to face espionage charges.

Moris said he has been confined exclusively to his cell for over a week because of a coronavirus outbreak on his prison block.

Assange attended four weeks of an extradition hearing at Londons Central Criminal Court in September and October. The judge overseeing the case said she would deliver her decision on Jan.4.

U.S. prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks publication of secret American military documents a decade ago. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.

Assanges defense team argues that he is a journalist and entitled to First Amendment protections for publishing leaked documents that exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also say the conditions he would face in a U.S. prison would breach his human rights.

Assange jumped bail in 2012 and sought asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which ended up becoming his home for seven years before he was evicted and subsequently arrested. He has been in a London prison since April 2019.

Read the original here:
Julian Assange's partner appeals to Trump to pardon him - ABC News

Ahead of Thanksgiving, President Donald Trump pardoned his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about communication with the Russian ambassador to the United States before Trumps inauguration in January 2017. The president's November 25 move to pardon the retired general who pleaded guilty twice has made people wonder if he would similarly pardon NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden or WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Trump tweeted, "It is my Great Honor to announce that General Michael T. Flynn has been granted a Full Pardon. Congratulations to @GenFlynn and his wonderful family, I know you will now have a truly fantastic Thanksgiving!

It is my Great Honor to announce that General Michael T. Flynn has been granted a Full Pardon. Congratulations to @GenFlynn and his wonderful family, I know you will now have a truly fantastic Thanksgiving!

The former Army General's sentencing had been deferred a number of times and he moved to withdraw his guilty plea in January 2020 claiming that his plea agreement had been breached. The case was placed on hold by Federal district judge Emmet G Sullivan in May and The United States Department of Justice announced that it intended to drop all charges against Flynn.A significant number of people have shown their support to the former CIA employee, who disclosed highly classified information from the National Security Agency in 2013 to journalists Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Barton Gellman, and Wen MacAskill.

Coming to the two men being the topic of hot discussion on social media, here's a brief reminder about Snowden. In June 2013, the United States Department of Justice charged Snowden with two counts of violating the Espionage Act 1917 and theft of government property when he had leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs. He was granted a temporary right of asylum in Russia which was made permanent in October 2020.

After Trump pardoned Flynn, Snowden started to trend on Twitter as more and more people tried to bring this to the POTUS' attention, with many hailing him as a "hero" for his act. One social media user wrote, "PARDON SNOWDEN! He's a whistle blowing hero. The people calling him a criminal are the people he blew the whistle on. We know we can't believe them." Another added, "@Snowden I for sure think you should be pardoned but I think you should come live in Canada , don't go back to USA" Adding to that another tweeted, "Sorry, everything I've heard about the dude is that he's a complete scumbag. I despise hero worship. If he gets pardoned I couldn't care less. I'd far rather see Snowden pardoned."

PARDON SNOWDEN!He's a whistle blowing hero.

The people calling him a criminal are the people he blew the whistle on.

We know we can't believe them.

@Snowden I for sure think you should be pardoned but I think you should come live in Canada , don't go back to USA

Sorry, everything I've heard about the dude is that he's a complete scumbag. I despise hero worship.

If he gets pardoned I couldn't care less.

I'd far rather see Snowden pardoned.

Besides Snowden, the WikiLeaks owner, Assange was also trending on Twitter as people discussed if he deserves to be pardoned for leaking the information provided by US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2010. In the same year, an international arrest warrant was issued against Assange over sexual assault allegations. He reportedly sought asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in London in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden. He was arrested in April 2019 after his political asylum was revoked. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 in May 2019 and is incarcerated in HM Prison.

One Twitter user wrote, "Not to mention Assange is also indicted for sexual assault. But sure, pardon him, anything to own a lib. Right?" Another wrote, "People clamoring for Trump to pardon sleaze merchant and sexual predator, Julian Assange, next? No." One tweeted, "I would love us to pardon Snowden. Unlike ASSange, he actually did this country a service. We *needed* to know the NSA was overstepping its bounds. Flynn and Trump? F**k 'em."

Not to mention Assange is also indicted for sexual assault.

But sure, pardon him, anything to own a lib. Right?

People clamoring for Trump to pardon sleaze merchant and sexual predator, Julian Assange, next?

No.

I would love us to pardon Snowden. Unlike ASSange, he actually did this country a service. We *needed* to know the NSA was overstepping its bounds.

Flynn and Trump? Fuck 'em. https://t.co/BiSnL30HqY

Read the rest here:

Should Donald Trump pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange? Heres why Internet wants only one of them saved - MEAWW

Beginning in 2010, we, the Yes Men, developed a friendship with Julian Assange and a collaboration with Wikileaks. In 2015, we made this short video about it, originally for inclusion in our third film, The Yes Men Are Revolting, but it didnt quite fit. We think it shows a charming, funny and thoughtful side of the man, and so despite our more complicated feelings about him after 2016 were making it available now, given the dire threats facing Assange and free speech more broadly.

Assange is currently facing extradition to the United States from London, for allegedly violating the U.S. Espionage Act marking the first time the act has been used to prosecute the publishing of information. If the extradition is successful, hell face trial in a Virginia espionage court that has never once absolved a national security defendant. Allowing the Virginia court to try (and most likely convict) him would be a disaster for democracy something even Obamas Justice Department believed in 2013, when they determined that indicting Assange would mean having to prosecute any news organization or writer who publishes classified material. (They called it the New York Times problem.)

Assanges extradition hearing began in February 2020, with the second part delayed from May until Sept. 7 because ofCOVID-19. In its apparent eagerness to extradite Assange, the court has committed some egregious abuses such as introducing new charges in June that Assange couldnt respond to that are mentioned in this summary by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and this short film by Wikileaks collaborator Juan Passarelli.

Meeting the mastermind

We first met Assange in the summer of 2010, in an awkward English manor/organic farm. He was under house arrest as he awaited a hearing for extradition to Sweden, where authorities wanted to question him on allegations of sex crimes. (The case was later dropped.) From Sweden, he would have been vulnerable to extradition to the United States, where he might have been subject to torture or worse; all things considered, he seemed pretty calm, not to mention funny and thoughtful, as we hope our little film shows.

We saw Julian again in February of 2011. Wikileaks had received thousands of internal emails from corporate spy agency Stratfor; a few dozen emails showed that Dow Chemicalhad hired Stratfor to spy on us, which was flattering to say the least.

In 2015, we shared a delicious rotisserie chicken and bottle of wine at Londons Ecuadorian embassy, where Julian was receiving diplomatic protection from Ecuadors left-wing government.

Angry at the DNC, angry at Wikileaks

Our feelings about Julian got more complicated when, a year later not long before the disastrous U.S. election of 2016 Wikileaks released a trove of private emails showing the Democratic National Committee had conspired with the Clinton campaign against Bernie Sanders candidacy. The first group of emails came just before the summer congress of the DNC, and the second, more directly linked to Clinton, a week before the election.

Of course, the DNCs actions against its own partys populist leanings were loathsome, not to mention myopic and stupid. Forty years of bipartisan neoliberalism had left millions expecting nothing from government, laying the groundwork for the rise of a right-wing populist like Donald Trump. Now, the DNC was squelching the only thing that could have countered him: a left-wing populist like Bernie Sanders, offering much-needed popular solutions based in reality rather than hatred.

Without Sanders in the mix, millions faced a choice between the same old neoliberal shit theyd been offered for decades, and a brand new kind of shit, untested and unproven. Many chose Trump, who became far and away the worst and most dangerous president in American history.

Still, for as much as weve mainly blamed Democrats for the horrible outcome of the 2016 election see our 2017 #DNCTakeBack intervention were also angry that Wikileaks chose to release the DNC emails, especially the second batch, when they did. The timing undoubtedly helped an unhinged authoritarian, in charge of an unhinged party, to win the election. Had Trump been more competent, we could easily be looking at the end of any sort of democracy in America; a Clinton presidency could have been many things, but not that.

Wikileaks claims that releasing the DNC emails when they did was a matter of journalistic integrity. But journalistic integrity could also have justified not releasing them at that time, considering the widely-supported possibility that the emails came from a concerted foreign campaign against Clinton. (Assange continues to insist they were not from a state actor, but its hard to see how that could be strictly ruled out.) It also seems that journalistic integrity could have meant releasing the emails after the election was over, rather than give the advantage to a scoundrel known to have even worse skeletons in the closet (that were known then but not publicized until later).

Also, journalistic integrity would have probably precluded talking to Donald Trump Jr. about what they could do for each other.

The real reasons?

We dont believe that journalistic integrity was Julians main reason for releasing those emails at the moments he did. There was also his abiding hatred of at least two things Hillary Clinton represented: her hawkishness and her neoliberalism.

While Clinton had supported the Iraq war, Wikileaks shined a light on U.S. abuses there with its Collateral Murder videos. (Among the revelations for which Assange is on trial is Wikileaks release of the Armys rules of engagement, which it used to prove that such drone strikes on civilians are in fact murder.) According to leaked online chats, Assange seems to have believed that Clintons hawkish tendencies would only worsen if she became president.

Wikileaks has published a lot of crucial information and revolutionized the idea of what journalism can do, whether or not we like all its results.

And while Clinton was the most prominent champion of the neoliberal consensus which helped lead to Trump Assange had long fought that consensus and the financialization it led to. (Financialization, the increase in size and influence of financial institutions and markets, was why Visa, MasterCard, Paypal and others were able to cut off contributions to Wikileaks following its release of the Collateral Murder videos, effectively censoring the organization with no legislative recourse to speak of.)

Its also possible that Julian, like some others on the left, thought a Trump presidency would put a dent in U.S. power abroad, both militarily and economically. But when strongmen succeed the results are predictable just look at China, Russia or, yes, Germany in the 1930s. Luckily, Trump was too incompetent to succeed, even if he did directly and profoundly affect millions of Americans, including the hundreds of thousands whove unnecessarily died of COVID-19. You just cant tell an American that the gambit was worth it.

Now what?

We intensely regret that Julian acted as he did in 2016, whether it was out of journalistic integrity, hatred for Clintonite warmongering or other policies, or a desire to see American power fail.

But we even more intensely believe that extraditing Julian to the United States to face trial under the Espionage Act would be a disaster for journalism and democracy worldwide. Wikileaks is a media organization, and an incredibly effective one at that. It has published a lot of crucial information and revolutionized the idea of what journalism can do, whether or not we like all its results.

Waging Nonviolence depends on your support. Become a sustaining member today and receive a gift of your choice!

To continue persecuting Julian is to persecute journalism.If Democrats keep squelching their own best ideas, fascism may take over but without journalism, without a free press, democracy fails for sure.

More than ever these days, the left needs to support, not destroy, the small groups that are part of the forces of light, as Julian calls them near the end of our film even when they get things a bit wrong. For one thing, well need every force of light imaginable to pressure our president-elect into doing what America needs, much as other movements did with LBJ, FDR and Lincoln.

Should we fail in that project, well have mainly ourselves to blame when a smarter Trump comes to power in 2024 no matter what steps or missteps, aided or not by a foreign power, lead to that outcome.

Read more:
The real threat to democracy isn't Julian Assange it's the espionage case against him - Waging Nonviolence

Dear Comrades,

On Tuesday 24th, during the evening vote session, the European parliament will be voting on the Report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2018-2019.

The rapporteur on this report, Clare Daly MEP, included a reference to the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, recognising that it poses a threat to journalists and freedom of expression in Europe. The European Federation of Journalists stated that the detention and prosecution of Assange sets an extremely dangerous precedent for journalists, media actors and freedom of the press.

The Council of Europe statement Continued Detention of WikiLeaks Founder and Publisher Julian Assange also highlights Julian Assanges arbitrary confinement and the findings of UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Nils Melzer. His conclusion was that in Belmarsh Assange exhibited all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.

As the Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed Julian Assange should not be extradited due to potential impact on press freedom and concerns about ill-treatment.

Here are our suggestions about points to include:

To further help, you can:

Resources youll need:

Assange Amendment_44.pdf

Letter to MEPs Julian Assange.docx

MeRA25 has also recently filed a motion to declare Julian Assanges extradition case null and void.

The Progressive International, co-founded by DiEM25 and The Sanders Institute, has additionally held The Belmarsh Tribunal on 2 October which sought to evaluate US war crimes in the 21st century, and defend Julian Assanges right to reveal them. You can now watch it here!

If you want to learn more about the case, read more here.

Read our call to action on our Forum!

Photo Source: Council of Europe.

Do you want to be informed of DiEM25's actions? Sign up here

Read more:
Make your voice heard: protect Assange and the freedom of the press - DiEM25

In this episode of the Computer Weekly Downtime Upload podcast, Bill Goodwin, investigations editor, joins Caroline Donnelly, Clare McDonald and Brian McKenna to discuss the case of Julian Assange, whose recent extradition hearing at The Old Bailey was curiously under-reported, but which Bill covered in depth.

Caroline gets the ball rolling with her own reflections on the international man of mystery that is Julian Assange well known, in some quarters, for his association with Pamela Anderson and his dressing up a cat in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Back in the heyday of WikiLeaks, in 2010/11, Caroline covered the story from a channel perspective, in relation to implications that hosting the site could have on the burgeoning cloud provider space. Caroline recalls how Amazon Web Services (AWS) pulled the plug on WikiLeaks at that time.

This was at the time of Chelsea Mannings leaks to WikiLeaks of hundreds of thousands of US military and other government documents of great historical importance, says Bill. These led to revelations of torture in detention at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp and civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. They demonstrated that US troops were killing significant numbers of civilians in the face of silence from the US and Iraqs ministry of health.

Bill saysDaniel Elsberg the US economist who, in 1971, leaked the Pentagon Papers that cast a bad light on US Vietnam policy described the WikiLeaks disclosures, during the recent Assange court hearing, as among the most important revelations of criminal state behaviour in US history. Elsberg said: It was clear to me that these revelations, like the Pentagon Papers, have the capability of informing the public that they had seriously been misled about the nature of war, progress in war, the likelihood of it ending at all.

Caroline asks why the US case against Assange has taken so long to reach the point it has, even allowing for his sojourn in the Ecuadorian embassy (from 2012 to 2019).

Bill recounts that the Obama regime had declined to prosecute Assange in 2013, but that the Trump administration revived the prosecution in 2019 about the same time as Assange was arrested in the Ecuador embassy in London by the Metropolitan Police, his welcome there having been outstayed.

(As is well known, Assange originally took refuge in the embassy in 2012 at a time when he was facing extradition to Sweden to be investigated for sexual assault allegations made by two women. Following his arrest in 2019 that case was reopened for investigation and then discontinued later that same year. Swedens deputy director of public prosecution,Eva-Marie Persson, said, in November 2019: The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question.)

A cache of leaks related to the USs highly probable animus towards Assange though it is not a matter for which he is being prosecuted is the so-called Vault 7 leaks.

Clare asks about this series of leaks on the podcast, and Bill explains: WikiLeaks published a series of leaks on the CIA, codenamed Vault 7, in March 2017. The first tranche included 8,761 documents and files from the CIAs Centre for Cyber Intelligence in Virginia. WikiLeaks described it as the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the CIA.

This series of leaks might have led the US to revisit the prosecution of Assange, speculates Bill. And the USs silence on Vault 7 is remarkable, he adds.

On the podcast, Bill goes into the complicated story of how unredacted US documents came to be published on the web. He also adverts to US Brigadier General Robert Carrs investigation into the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, which found no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life because of them.

Julian Assange is currently in Belmarsh prison, in London. But he was in court, at the Old Bailey in London, in September and October of this year.

On the podcast, Bill takes the team through the court proceedings, which were about whether he should be extradited to the US to face prosecution.

This most recent trial, conducted by judge Vanessa Baraitser, saw a mushrooming of indictmentsemanating from the US authorities. Assange was initially indicted on one count under the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for allegedly conspiring with former US soldier and intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to obtain classified US documents.

The US later filed a second indictment adding 17 further charges under the Espionage Act 1917, related to receiving and publishing classified documents from Manning.

Shortly before the extradition hearings in September, the US filed a third indictment, which did not add any new charges but introduced further detailed allegations that Assange conspired with hackers to obtain confidential information.

Assanges defence team complained that they were not given time to address the new allegations before the September court hearings but were not granted further time.

Bill details, on the podcast, some of the reporting restrictions and constrictive court mechanics that characterised the hearings.

The parlous state of Assanges health was an issue that came up during the proceedings. Bill confirmed that he does have a set of health conditions, including a diagnosis of Aspergers and depression. The risk here is that if he is extradited then he may be at risk of suicide. Conditions in US prisons also mean that he would be held in a cell the size of a parking lot 23 hours a day if extradited.

If he is not extradited, the US government will most likely appeal, says Bill. And if that appeal more likely a series of appeals fails then the case could follow the patterns of alleged hackers Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon who were spared extradition (and also prosecution in the UK), but are effectively trapped in the UK.

On the podcast, Brian asks why the Assange extradition case is important?

Bill says the case is not really about Assange. It has much wider implications and, if it goes ahead,will criminalise many aspects of journalism.

The charges against Assange include, under the US Espionage Act, possessing leaked documents and conspiring with sources to obtain newsworthy information, as well as trying to help a source protect their identity. Bill points out these are common journalistic practices, and mentions former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridgers concern about the precedent the case will set for journalists in the future.

The NUJ is also, says Bill, campaigning on the issues of journalistic freedom surrounding the case, and both they and Rusbridger have argued that if the US can extradite UK citizens for possessing and publishing leaked documents, for example, exposing US war crimes, then it follows that Russia, or North Korea, should equally be able to extradite journalists who expose corruption in Russia or North Korea.

And then, where would we be?

(As a parenthesis, Bill is well known for his record in the defence of freedom of the press. In 1989, he almost went to jail in defence of a very important principle of press freedom namely the protection of sources. As a young reporter on The Engineer, Bill wrote a story based on a leak. A judge ordered him to reveal the identity of a person who told him that an engineering company was in dire financial straits.He refused to do so and was fined for contempt of court. Eventually, in 1996, the European Court of Human Rights said the order and the fine violated his rights to free expression).

On the podcast, Bill expands on the specific interest in the Assange case for Computer Weekly and other news organisations. WikiLeaks use of technology to protect sources has been innovative, and we have emulated some of that, he says.

The team close the podcast out by first revisiting some of the colourful activities famously associated with Julian in the (very small) Ecuadorian embassy. And the impressive list of visitors he received from the worlds of the media, show business, music and computer science. He also had two children with Stella Moris during his time there.

Bill then sums up the significance of the WikiLeaks disclosures of US government documents.

It has been hugely important, says Bill. It introduced the phenomenon of mass leaks of information. It disclosed a lot of information that sheds light on governments, not just the US government, and calls them to account. Daniel Elsberg was very clear about how important the revelations were. And Patrick Cockburns piece [in July 2007] in The Independent about the killing of two Reuters journalists [and nine other people by a US helicopter in Baghdad] was confirmed by the Manning leaks. (Cockburn has also written in the London Review of Books about Assange being in limbo).

Its hard to over-estimate the importance of these leaks, concludes Bill.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser has said she will issue a decision on whether to extradite Assange, who remains in custody in Belmarsh Prison, on 4 January 2021. The 49-year-old faces up to 175 years in prison.

Podcast music courtesy of Joseph McDade

Continue reading here:
The case of Julian Assange as he faces US extradition bid Computer Weekly Downtime Upload podcast - ComputerWeekly.com

This is the season for look-aheads: What kind of policy and personnel choices should we expect to see from the executive branch following Joe Bidens inauguration in January? Here at the Reporters Committee, were beginning to take stock of what a new administration might mean for technology, press rights and the First Amendment. What follows is a brief, inexhaustive list of what the Technology and Press Freedom Project will be watching.

For starters, as Josh Gersteinrecently reportedfor Politico, a Biden Justice Department will need to decide whether to go forward with a number of controversial prosecutions that implicate First Amendment rights. Top of mind for many in the media will be the ongoing effort toextradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The Obama administration had previously concluded that charging Assange with espionage for his role in publishing leaked government documents would chill reporting (and violate the Constitution). The Trump administration, though, has charged ahead, and a decision in the extradition proceeding is expected inearly January. Similarly, the new administration will confront the question whether to pursue a number of charges arising out of the summers protests against systemic racism and police brutality.

Then theres the Department of Homeland Security. The agency is working to finalize a number of rules that raise First Amendment and press-rights concerns from biometric surveillanceat the border to a crackdown on the availability of visas for representatives of foreign media outlets. (In October, the Reporters Committee and a media coalitionsubmitted commentsopposing the visa rule.) If the Trump administration fails to publish those rules before Biden takes office, his appointees could withdraw them without much in the way offuss or formality; if DHS manages to finalize them, on the other hand, withdrawal will require a new, laborious round of notice and comment. DHS recently toldVoice of Americathat it plans to have the visa rule in effect before the end of the year.

Then, of course, theres the Trump administrations internet agenda, much of which has been implemented by executive order. Several courts have now concluded that the presidents orders banning WeChat and TikTok exceeded his powers (whether because theyviolate the Constitutionor the statutes setting out his delegatedsanctionsauthority). Will President Biden withdraw them?

The change of administration will also bringa change in leadershipat the Federal Communications Commission, which could portend an early end to the rulemaking the agency launched for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to take action on the governments petition inKnight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, where the president is asking the Court to reverse a lower courts conclusion that blocking his critics on Twitter violates the First Amendment.

This is, of course, a partial and preliminary list. Well be keeping an eye out for further developments.

Like what youve read?Sign up to get the full This Week in Technology + Press Freedom newsletter delivered straight to your inbox!

The Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press uses integrated advocacy combining the law, policy analysis, and public education to defend and promote press rights on issues at the intersection of technology and press freedom, such as reporter-source confidentiality protections, electronic surveillance law and policy, and content regulation online and in other media. TPFP is directed by Reporters Committee attorney Gabe Rottman. He works with Stanton Foundation National Security/Free Press Legal Fellow Grayson Clary and Technology and Press Freedom Project Legal Fellow Mailyn Fidler.

Read the original:
What's in store for technology and press rights in 2021? - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

More than three years after Fox News Channel retracted its story that a political conspiracy was behind the fatal shooting of Seth Rich, the Rupert Murdoch-owned outlet has settled its legal battle with the DNC staffers family.

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiffs Joel and Mary Rich and Defendants Fox News Network, LLC, Malia Zimmerman, and Edward Butowsky, that the claims by Joel and Mary Rich against all Defendants are dismissed with prejudice, and each party waives all right to appeal and to seek attorneys fees and costs, reads the filing Tuesday between the parties in federal court.

The agreement (read it here) comes as Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs were scheduled to give potentially damning depositions in the case.

Related StoryAfter Joe Biden's Inauguration, Will Donald Trump Be Able To Steal The Show? - Analysis

It is not known how much FNC paid the Rich family to end the matter. However, Richs parents Joel and Mary Rich made no secret of their relief at seeing the suit come to a conclusion.

The settlement with Fox News closes another chapter in our efforts to mourn the murder of our beloved Seth, whom we miss every single day, the couple said in a statement today after the filing was made in New York City by their attorneys at Massey & Gail LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP. It allows us to move on from the litigation we initiated in response to Fox News May 2017 article and televised statements concerning Seths murder. We are pleased with the settlement of this matter and sincerely hope that the media will take genuine caution in the future.

FNC was brief in its own remarks on the settlement.

We are pleased with the resolution of the claims and hope this enables Mr. and Mrs. Rich to find a small degree of peace and solace moving forward, a spokesperson for Fox News said.

Having been at the Democratic National Committee for just over a year, Seth Rich was shot on July 10, 2016 near his home in DCs Bloomingdale neighborhood. It came after the DNC and a number of Hillary Clinton campaign staffers were hacked during the 2016 election, with WikiLeaks dumping out private communications on numerous occasions during her unsuccessful presidential run against Donald Trump. The FNC story posted in 2017 attempted to draw a connection between Richs death and the document dump, suggesting Rich leaked for the Julian Assange-run group.

As more details of the story unraveled , the likes of Trump faves Hannity and Dobbs continued to bang on about the matter, with seemingly little thought for the grieving family or the facts.

In May 2018, the Rich family sued FNC, plus investigative reporter Malia Zimmerman and FNC guest Ed Butowsky, for the harm caused by their sham story. Fox News eventually retracted the article, saying it was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting.

No parent should ever have to live through what we have been forced to endure. The pain and anguish that comes from seeing your murdered sons life and legacy treated as a mere political football is beyond comprehension, Joel and Mary Rich said at the time their lawsuit was filed.

Still, FNC seemed to have the upper hand until the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling revived the Rich lawsuit in September 2019, reversing a previous lower court decision to dismiss the matter.

Having said that, the joint dismissal move today has hit a road bump of its own.

The stipulation of voluntary dismissal was not signed by all parties who have appeared, said the court on the docket on Tuesday. Re-file the document using the event type Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal found under the event list, they added.

View original post here:
Fox News Settles Long-Running Legal Battle With Seth Richs Parents; Family Hopes Media Will Take Genuine Caution In The Future - Deadline