There is currently a drama unfolding in a courtroom across the ocean in Great Britain. It is the extradition trial of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. He would be handed over to US authorities if he loses his extradition trial where he is wanted on charges of endangering national security. The specifics of the charges are unknown; we do not know if this goes back to the Bradley Call Me Chelsea Manning leaks, or if it involves later leaks from an anonymous source that revealed technical abilities of the intelligence community apparatus. Standing in the middle is, of course, WikiLeaks publishing the DNC emails during the 2016 US presidential campaign. Regardless, the possibility of a 175-year prison sentence hangs over the head of Assange.

Assange is a polarizing figure and whether he is seen as a hero or a villain depends on the information being released through his organization, WikiLeaks. With the Manning tranche of leaks, these were items that were embarrassing to the United States and some of our allies involving leaked diplomatic cables and certain actions in Afghanistan and Iraq that some consider war crimes (not this author). More disturbing was the release of information describing US electronic intelligence efforts in the war on terrorism. Although likely setting back those efforts when released, the ICs technical apparatus is smart enough to adjust to those revelations.

As for the DNC email release, Trump should be singing the praises of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. In fact, he did during the 2016 campaign. On the trail, Trump referred to Hillary Clinton as crooked and the election as rigged. The crookedness part did not only deal with her own specific email problem, the Clinton Foundation and other assorted sundry Clinton scandals. And he made as much reference to a rigged general election as he did to the Democrat nomination process where he often cast Bernie Sanders as the victim of that rigging, with Clinton pulling the strings. The WikiLeaks releases pretty much confirmed that observation.

However, the Trump administration is not singing the praises of Assange and WikiLeaks and is instead seeking extradition to this country so he can stand trial under the Espionage Act. There are the obvious legal problems associated with this action. The normal course of action is to prosecute the leaker of classified information, not the publisher of that information. It is why Bradley Manning spent time in Leavenworth after delivering pilfered documents to WikiLeaks.

It could be that Trump is simply trying to make a huge example of the ultimate publisher of classified material. It is no secret that the Trump administration has been plagued by a plethora of leaks from almost Day One of his administration. Obtaining a conviction against Assange and WikiLeaks would send a huge message to legacy media outlets that would publish leaked information. But, this strategy would be rife with pitfalls. There are the obvious First Amendment hurdles to overcome and no guarantee a fair and impartial trial could be conducted, and if it could whether it would result in a conviction.

It must also be considered that Assange is not exactly loved by the Democrats. Hillary Clinton said of him: I think Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator. I mean, hes the tool of Russian intelligence. In response to the DNC leaks, the leadership of the Democrats and the media did not rebuke the party for obvious bias in favor of Clinton, but flipped the narrative so that Assange and Russia became the focus of criticism. We already know how the Democrats will frame an extradition and trial if it ever comes to pass: Trump is throwing his partner in crime under the bus. Sadly, there are voters and the media who will buy into it, such is TDS these days.

One is left with the impression the potential extradition and charges against Assange are simply a political ploy in the ongoing battle between Trump and Democrats and that Assange is a pawn in that battle. It must be remembered that this is happening against a backdrop of Attorney General Barr investigating the origin of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. Specifically, did the FBI, IC and Democrat Party hatch a scheme to portray Trump as beholden to the will of the Kremlin?

It is easy to forget that there is a Durham investigation right now. The media certainly seldom, if ever, reports on it yet we were privy to every Mueller dud of a bombshell almost weekly. Many pundits believe there is a raging behind-the-scenes battle between Trump and Democrats which explains their continual belief in Russian interference, the endless investigations, the inevitable impeachment part 2, and other efforts by the Democrats. It is a race to destroy Trump before he destroys them.

This where Assange enters the picture. Assuming he is extradited and charged and faces a lengthy prison sentence, he may- or may not- be persuaded to reveal the source of the DNC leaks. It would expose the whole Russiagate nonsense if it can conclusively be proven that the source of those stories was not Russia, but a disgruntled DNC insider. It would exonerate the reputations of so many Trump associates in his campaign and administration. It would blow the Russian interference narrative out of the water. In short, it would shed a light on the biggest scandal in American history. And who better to deliver that blow than the ultimately most effective whistle-blower of modern times- Julian Assange?

Understandably anxious to clear the name of Trump, it is conceivable that the Administration could offer Assange a slap on the wrists in exchange for putting Russiagate to rest. There are two questions remaining, however. The first is whether Assange would agree to such a deal. In 2017, he emphatically stated the source of the DNC leak was not a state actor, and that is all he has said. Does he risk putting his reputation as a journalist on the line to save his own neck? Does he even still believe he has a reputation to preserve? This writer is not suggesting a pardon such as that intimated at in that courtroom in England where Trump, through Dana Roshrabacher, is alleged to have offered a pardon in exchange for Assange naming the DNC leaker.

Secondly, one must ask whether such an attempt would be, in effect, weaponizing the prosecution of someone being accused of violating the Espionage Act for political gain. It is becoming more obvious that the Obama administration did just that with Operation Crossfire Hurricane. However, there is a difference. In other words, does the Trump administration do what the Obama administration did?

If they are going after Assange for publishing the electronic intelligence source leaks or the Manning leaks, these clearly had serious national security implications. The DNC release did not. Those leaks were barely a blip on the political radar outside the Beltway. It merely confirmed what most people, including most Democrats, already knew: the DNC was all-in for Hillary Clinton in 2016. The intelligence community survived the electronics leaks and the military survived the Manning leaks. In many ways, they are old history. The effects of the DNC leaks, which were part and parcel of the whole Russian collusion hoax, persist to this day. One can say that the entire Russia hoax was a greater threat to our national security than Bradley Manning ever was because it is an ongoing attempt to overthrow a duly elected President.

If nothing else, it is worth the old college try. Either Trump gets Assange to admit that the source of his leaks came from within the DNC and not Russia, or he can send a strong message to those who would publish leaks that their legal life will be a living Hell. He has the Espionage Act on his side as a wedge between truth and Assanges principles.

Often, the process is the punishment. Just ask George Papadopolous, Carter Page, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and any other target in the Obama administrations attempted coup.

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

View post:
The Assange Affair: What Is Trump's Endgame?

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech. First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

In the oral argument of the famous U.S. Supreme Court cases known collectively as the Pentagon Papers Case, the late Justice William O. Douglas asked a government lawyer if the Department of Justice views the no law language in the First Amendment to mean literally no law. The setting was an appeal of the Nixon administrations temporarily successful efforts to bar The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing documents stolen from the Department of Defense by a civilian employee, Daniel Ellsberg.

The documents were a government-written history of the Vietnam War, which revealed that President Lyndon B. Johnson and his secretaries of defense and state and the militarys top brass materially misrepresented the status of the war to the American people. Stated differently, they regularly, consistently and systematically lied to the public and the news media.

Though LBJ was retired, Nixon did not want this unvarnished version of the war he was still fighting to make its way into the public arena. The Nixon DOJ persuaded a federal district court judge to enjoin the publication of the documents because they contained classified materials and they had been stolen.

In a landmark decision, the court ruled that all truthful matters material to the public interest that come into the hands of journalists no matter how they get there may lawfully be disseminated. That does not absolve the thief though the case against Ellsberg was dismissed because the FBI committed crimes against him during his prosecution but it does insulate the publisher absolutely against civil and criminal liability.

The Pentagon Papers Case is a profound explication of one of the great values underlying the freedom of speech; namely, the government cannot lawfully punish those who publish truths it hates and fears.

After his administration lost the case and the Times and the Post published the documents, Nixon attempted to distinguish his presidency and administration of the War from LBJs, but he did not challenge the truthfulness of the publications.

Regrettably, the Trump administration is pretending the Pentagon Papers Case does not exist. It is manifesting that pretense in its criminal pursuit of international gadfly and journalist Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Sometime in 2010, Assange and his colleagues began receiving classified U.S. Department of Defense materials from an Army intelligence officer now known as Chelsea Manning.

Manning committed numerous crimes, for which she pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Her sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama, whose Department of Justice publicly declined to prosecute Assange in deference to the once universal acceptance of the Pentagon Papers Case and the numerous court rulings that have followed it.

The Trump DOJ, however, sought and obtained two indictments of Assange, who is now charged with 17 counts of espionage and faces 175 years in prison. Assange is currently being held in a maximum-security prison outside of London. The U.S. has sought his extradition at a proceeding that began in a London courtroom this week.

When lawyers blatantly reject well-accepted law for some political gain, they violate their oaths to uphold the law. When government lawyers do this, they also violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution. For them, there is no escaping the Pentagon Papers Case. While the case turned on the concept of prior restraint of speech, it clearly reflects the views of the court that it matters not how the publisher obtained the secrets that he published.

WikiLeaks revealed in partnership with major international publications, including the two involved in the Pentagon Papers Case videos of American troops murdering civilians and celebrating the murders (a war crime) as well as documentary proof of American complicity in torture (also a war crime).

Just as in the Pentagon Papers revelations, neither the Obama nor the Trump administration has questioned the truthfulness of the WikiLeaks publication even though they revealed murderous wrongdoing, duplicity at the highest levels of government and the names of American intelligence sources (which some mainstream publications declined to make known).

Assange fears that he cannot get a fair trial in the United States. The government says he can and will. When the government suddenly became interested in fair trials remains a mystery. Yet, arguments about fairness miss the point of this lawless prosecution. A journalist is a gatherer and disseminator of facts and opinions. The governments argument that because he communicated with Manning and helped Manning get the data into WikiLeaks hands, Assange somehow crossed the line from protected behavior to criminal activity shows a pitiful antipathy to personal freedom.

Democracy dies in darkness. The press is the eyes and ears of an informed public. And those eyes and ears need a nose, so to speak. They need breathing room. It is the height of naivete to think that Ellsberg just dropped off the Pentagon Papers at the Times and the Post, without some coordination with those publications coordination that the courts assume exist and implicitly protect.

Might all of this be part of the Trump administrations efforts to chill the free speech of its press critics to deny them breathing room? After all, it has referred to them as sick, dishonest, crazed, unpatriotic, unhinged and totally corrupt purveyors of fake news.

Yet the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to assure open, wide, robust debate about the government, free from government interference and threats. How can that debate take place in darkness and ignorance?

If no law doesnt really mean no law, we are deluding ourselves, and freedom is not reality. It is merely a wished for fantasy.

The rest is here:
Napolitano: Punishing the free speech of Julian Assange - Daily Herald

The Julian Assange case has finally broken into the mainstream as he sits in a bulletproof glass box in Woolwich Crown "Fort. The publisher of WikiLeaks has been wanted by successive US administrations and, according to Assange's council, Edward Fitzgerald, the US had not just filmed every aspect of Assange's life in the sovereign embassy of Ecuador in London, but had actively considered his death. There are signs of increasing anxieties about Assange's case stretching from NGOs through the New York Times to the leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition in the British Parliament. A steady stream of prominent American writers has been heading to the unlikely London destination of Belmarsh. One of the more distinguished of which is Joe Lauria, Editor-in-Chief of Consortium News, formerly of the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe. So all the way from Virginia via Belmarsh, he came into the Sputnik to tell us more.

The Sandinistas overthrew one of the worst Latin American dictators, Somoza, way back in 1979 and began re-building a country in which thousands had died, where over half a million were left homeless and there was a devastated economic infrastructure. They stood and were defeated in 1990, but their re-election in 2006 was a major blow to US Latin American policy. Under their leadership, the economy grew, poverty was reduced and, according to the UN, the country now ranks fifth in gender equality! But it seems the regime change machine in Washington is back and hard at work again. With crippling sanctions in place, could Nicaragua be following in the footsteps of Venezuela? Professor Daniel Kovalik teaches at the Pittsburgh School of Law as well as works as a labor and human rights lawyer. He is also a supreme authority on Latin America and its tortured relations with the "giantto the north,so we invited him into the Sputnik studio to tell us about his documentary on Nicaragua and his latest book on Venezuela.

Follow@RT_sputnik

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

Go here to see the original:
Julian Assange trial and Nicaragua now (E321) RT Sputnik Orbiting the World - RT

Everyone has a view on Assange. But, frankly, our views should be irrelevant. We, the public, are not in the know. Were easily manipulated. We can be wrong.

Assange is on trial in Belmarsh Magistrates Court, London. In theory, its just an extradition hearing, tasked with deciding whether the Brits will extradite Assange to the US. Although Britains extradition treaty with the US specifically excludes extradition for political offences, politics is everywhere.

Its there in the intention to try Assange on 18 espionage charges relating to the 2010 leaks (for which Chelsea Manning, who supplied the documents, has already been pardoned).

Julian Assange being taken from court last year.Credit:AP

Its there in the Obama administrations decision (says Assanges defence) not to prosecute Assange for the Manning leaks, and in Trumps reversal of that decision. Its there in Trumps alleged offer of a pardon if Assange agreed to forswear Russian influence. And in Britain's efforts to pretend that this is a standard crime, not a political one.

Its there, too, in our own governments cowardly refusal to help Assange despite the AFPs 2010 finding that he has broken no Australian law and a Department of Defence finding that he did not damage Australias security interests.

This is no simple hearing. Everything about these proceedings, from the choice of courthouse to the conduct of the case itself, seems to confirm that. Like the hounding of poor Jewell, this is trial by intimidation and that fine instrument of justice, public opinion.

Loading

Britain has a long and noble tradition of law courts. The Fleet Street law courts in particular properly known as the Royal Courts of Justice, designed by GE Street in the 1870s imply in their very conformation the true and impartial rule of law. Deep in our child-hearts, most of us still believe this about Britain.

But Belmarsh Magistrates Court says the opposite. An extradition hearing would normally be held at Westminster Magistrates Court, to symbolise links to high justice. Not this one. Belmarsh Magistrates Court, set within Woolwich Crown Court, sits on a windswept marsh within a three-prison complex, girdled by motorways and a high steel palisade.

A grim contemporary building built for terrorism offences, it is as far from any symbolic representation of democracy as can be imagined. Assange is manhandled into court from the adjacent prison via a secure tunnel. Here, says Murray, far from any attempt to represent the presumption of innocence, "you are already considered guilty and in jail on arrival".

The courtroom offers only 16 public seats. To get one, you must queue in the miserable cold and dark for two hours before court opens at eight. Murray a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan (2002-2004) who was himself hounded as a whistleblower after revealing mass political imprisonment and torture there has done just that, in order to deliver a blow-by-blow eyewitness account of the hearing.

Assange, who has been strip-searched and repeatedly handcuffed like some violent criminal, is not expected to speak during the four-week hearing. He sits alone at the back, quarantined inside a bulletproof glass case that impedes his view and hearing of proceedings and prevents any communication with his legal team. His private documents are confiscated, including privileged communications with his lawyer.

Loading

Murrays accounts contains some astonishing observations. On day one, he says, the US prosecutor, James Lewis QC, explicitly addressed his opening remarks "not to the court but to the media". This is unprecedented. In this address, says Murray, Lewis explicitly denied that the espionage charges against Assange also threatened mainstream media like The Guardian and The New York Times. Later under questioning from the magistrate, Murray says, Lewis changed his mind and admitted that yes, they would be affected, but this part of his remarks was not offered to the media (who might well find such assertions alarming).

On day two, Assanges defence, Edward Fitzgerald QC, said the prosecution must prove three things: that Assange had helped Manning decode a hash key necessary to hack classified material, that Assange had solicited the material from Manning and that he had knowingly put lives at risk. There is, said Fitzgerald, no evidence on any of these counts, some of which were disproved in Mannings court-martial. And the prosecution has admitted it cannot prove harm.

But even that is not the point. No one should be arguing the substantive case here. For now, the questions are; is this a political crime? Should Assange receive a fair trial? Does anyone believe hell get one in Trumps America? And do we really think, given his poor health, he would survive prison there? The answers have to be yes, yes, no and, resoundingly, no.

Elizabeth Farrelly is a Sydney-based columnist and author who holds a PhD in architecture and several international writing awards. She is a former editor and Sydney City Councilor. Her books include 'Glenn Murcutt: Three Houses, 'Blubberland; the dangers of happiness and Caro Was Here, crime fiction for children (2014).

Here is the original post:
The only questions that should matter in the Assange extradition battle - The Sydney Morning Herald

A supporter protests against the US extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. (Matt Dunham / AP Photo)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

If WikiLeaks did not exist, the public would know much less than it does about what government and politicians are doing in its name.Ad Policy

When a 35-year-old Australian named Julian Assange launched WikiLeaks with a few like-minded friends in 2006, he little knew what exposing malfeasance would cost him. The WikiLeaks model was simple: provide a safe repository for documents showing state and corporate wrongdoing while guaranteeing anonymity for the leaker. Newspapers were not necessarily safe for whistle-blowers, as British civil servant Sarah Tisdall discovered in 1983 when Londons The Guardian caved in to a court order and handed over documents that identified her as the source for its story on US cruise missile deployment in the UK. She went to prison for four months and lost her job.

Conscientious employees in government and the private sector trusted WikiLeaks enough to send damning papers that WikiLeaks published and made available to international media. WikiLeaks became a vital source of information for journalists and not, as then CIA director Mike Pompeo would call it in 2017 a non-state hostile intelligence service. It was providing information not to spy agencies and departments of defense but to you and me. Without it, we would not have known what happened when an Apache helicopter shot and killed seven civilians, including two Reuters journalists, in Baghdad in 2007.

Patrick Cockburn of Londons The Independent was in Baghdad at the time. The Pentagon had rejected FOIA requests for the Apache video documenting the event. The military conducted an internal investigation thatlike all internal investigations, whether by Enron, the Israeli Defense Forces, or the CIAshowed no wrongdoing. The mediaand thus the publichad no alternative to official whitewash. Then in 2010 WikiLeaks placed the video, along with government documents, in the public domain. Cockburn writes:

We could not prove anything until WikiLeaks made public the film from the Apache. Viewing it still has the power to shock: the pilots are cock-a-hoop as they hunt their prey, including people in a vehicle who stop to help the wounded, saying, Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards, and, Ha, ha, I hit them. Anybody interested in why the US failed in Iraq should have a look.

The soldier who leaked the video and thousands of other documents that contradicted Pentagon versions of the war, Chelsea Manning, went to prison. It was not WikiLeaks but a friend of Mannings who tipped off the government. Manning was eventually pardoned by Barack Obama, but she is back in prison for refusing to cooperate with a secret federal grand jury investigating Assange. Thanks to her efforts and those of dozens of others, the public has access to important documents including Iraq Rules of Engagement 2007-2009, The Afghan War Diaries, Iraq War Logs, Cablegate, and Gitmo Files. WikiLeaks did not confine its exposures to the United States. A recent WikiLeaks press release reminded the media:

WikiLeaks has published leaks from many other countries including Kenya, Peru, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Namibia, Norway and Iceland. For example:

I declare an interest: Julian Assange is my friend. But I do not defend him because he is a friend. He is a friend because he is worth defending, because he disclosed vital information to the public on actions taken in our name and because he has sacrificed his freedom to do it. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, has visited Assange in Britains high security Belmarsh prison and concluded that he is suffering full-fledged psychological torture. In addition, Spanish contractors working for the CIA have monitored privileged lawyer-client discussions with his defense team. Assange is not receiving a fair hearing in Britain. He is unlikely to receive a fair trial in the United States, when the prosecution knows all about his legal strategy while he knows nothing of theirs.

The criminals who perpetrated war crimes revealed in their own communications documented and made public by WikiLeaks did not want you to know about them. Nor do they want you to know about those they commit in the future. To conceal the truth, they will put the truth-teller in an oubliette where he will never again discover and reveal anything. By depriving Julian Assange of his freedom and thus intimidating his journalistic colleagues, US and UK prosecutors are abetting criminality by spies, secret policemen, torturers, and kleptocrats everywhere. If they succeed in putting Julian Assange in a concrete cell for the rest of his life, it will give them a long breathing space to commit more crimes and amass illegal wealth in secret.

Read the original here:
Free Julian Assange! - The Nation

The US plotted to kidnap and possibly kill Julian Assange as he hid out at the Ecuadorian embassy in London aiming to make it look like an accident, the WikiLeaks founders lawyer claimed at his extradition hearing this week.

American spies teamed up with UC Global, a Spanish company contracted by Ecuador to provide security at the embassy, to help plant intrusive and sophisticated secret surveillance of Assange, his attorney stated without evidence at the London hearing Monday, according to reports.

Assange was even filmed meeting with his legal team and got so desperate about constant surveillance that he started sleeping in a tent inside his bedroom, the Telegraph reported.

It was part of an alleged plot that contemplated a sinister ending for the hacker accused of putting lives at risk with his massive dump of top-secret US documents and diplomatic cables, the court was told.

There were conversations about whether there should be more extreme measures contemplated, such as kidnapping or poisoning Julian Assange in the embassy, Assanges attorney, Edward Fitzgerald, told the court, according to the Daily Mail.

US Globals owner, David Morales, was exposed by a mysterious Iberian whistleblower known only as Witness Two, the report says.

Witness Two revealed that Morales said the Americans were desperate and had even suggested more extreme measures could be applied against the guest to put an end to the situation, Fitzgerald told the court, the Mail said.

AP

AP

AP

Julia Quenzler / SWNS

Morales was actively working with the dark side in other words, US intelligence agencies, Fitzgerald claimed, according to the report.

It was suggested that the embassy door could be left open to make a kidnapping look like it could have been an accident, Assanges attorney claimed.

Assange initially entered the embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex offense allegations, which were eventually dropped.

He remained there after being indicted in the US on 18 charges over the publication of hundreds of thousands of classified documents, which his legal team says could see him sentenced to 175 years in prison.

Ecuador finally kicked him out of the embassy last April and Assange was immediately arrested by British police ready for the extradition hearing that finally started Monday.

Assange watched the proceedings from the courtroom dock, brought there from Belmarsh Prison next door.

The hearing will be adjourned at the end of the week and continue with three weeks of evidence scheduled for May. A decision on the case is not expected for months.

See the original post:
Julian Assange's lawyer claims US wanted to kill WikiLeaks founder and make it look like accident - New York Post

Boris Johnson should block attempts to extradite Julian Assange to the US, say two Australian MPs who visited the Wikileaks founder in prison, describing him afterwards as a man under enormous pressure and whose health and mental health had deteriorated.

George Christensen, a Liberal National MP for the ruling party in Australia told a press conference outside the gates of Belmarsh prison that he knew of information, which would come to light during the start of the extradition hearing next week, that would make people in Australia sit up and worry.

He said: I think that now is the time that the government that I am a part of needs to be standing up and saying to the UK and the US: Enough is enough leave that bloke alone and let him come home.

Andrew Wilkie, an independent federal MP and the co-chair of the Bring Julian Assange Home parliamentary group, who joined Christensen in London, told a press conference in London on Tuesday morning that the extradition of Assange, who has been charged by the US with conspiring to hack into a secret Pentagon computer network, would set a dangerous precedent.

This will establish a precedent that if you are a journalist who does anything that offends any government in the world then you face the very real prospect of being extradited to that country, he said. This is a political case and what is at stake is not just the life of Julian Assange. It is about the future of journalism.

Wilkie said that Assange had done the right thing by publishing secret video in 2010 showing US air crew falsely claiming to have encountered a firefight in Baghdad and then laughing at the dead after launching an airstrike that killed a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for the Reuters news agency.

Speaking after he and Christensen had spent a half an hour with Assange, who they said had asked about his family and had been worried about the impact of Australias bushfires, he said: He faces charges of espionage and computer hacking. If he is convicted of those charges he faces up to 175 years in prison, in a US federal prison. Its a life sentence and could almost be said to be a death sentence. Why wouldnt you be in there feeling under enormous pressure. That helps to explain why he is in the state that he is.

Assange is no longer being kept in solitary confinement and his health is improving, WikiLeaks said on Tuesday. WikiLeaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson said he had been moved from solitary confinement in the medical wing to a different part of the prison with 40 other inmates after complaints from his legal team and prisoners, who had petitioned the governor.

Christensen said he had sent a letter to Johnson in which he noted that the prime minister had recently admitted that Britains extradition treaty with the US was imbalanced following the rejection of an extradition request for Anne Sacoolas, the woman accused of causing the the death of motorcyclist Harry Dunn.

Christensen said: I am a big fan of Trump, I am a big fan of Bojo [Boris Johnson] but Ill tell you what I value more: free speech, he said. There are a lot of Australians on the right and left who think that Julian Assange is a rat bag, that I am a rat bag, but that he should be brought home.

I hope that Boris Johnson withdraws this case that is before the courts, he said. There is a problem here What if it was a British journalist or an outspoken British citizen who went on holiday to another country that has an extradition treaty with China, and China wanted to extradite that British citizen?

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, is expected to visit Assange in prison on Wednesday. The first part of the hearing next week at Woolwich crown court will cover arguments that the extradition is politically motivated and an abuse of process. A decision is unlikely to be handed down for several months - and even then, it is likely the losing side would appeal.

The Australian MPs appearance in London before the start of an extradition hearing next week came as a letter by a group of doctors representing 117 physicians and psychologists from 18 nations called for an end to what they described as the psychological torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange.

The letter, which was published in the medical journal the Lancet and has also been sent to the Australian foreign affairs minister, Marise Payne, expresses concern over Assanges fitness to take part in the legal proceedings.

The letter, which echoes the concerns raised by the UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, on Assanges health, adds: Should Assange die in a UK prison, as the UN special rapporteur on torture has warned, he will have effectively been tortured to death.

Much of that torture will have taken place in a prison medical ward, on doctors watch. The medical profession cannot afford to stand silently by, on the wrong side of torture and the wrong side of history, while such a travesty unfolds.

Assanges father, John Shipton, told the BBCs Victoria Derbyshire programme on Tuesday: The ceaseless anxiety that Julians been under for now 10 years, it has had a profoundly deleterious effect. I cant speculate on to his state of mind, but I imagine that he will be really worried because being sent to the United States is a death sentence.

Assange is being held in Belmarsh prison in south-east London.

A US grand jury has indicted him on 18 charges 17 of which fall under the Espionage Act around conspiracy to receive, obtaining and disclosing classified diplomatic and military documents.

Follow this link:
Julian Assange: Australian MPs call on UK to block US extradition - The Guardian

I was in Kabul in 2010 when Julian Assange and WikiLeaks first released a vast archive of classified US government documents, revealing what Washington really knew about what was happening in the world. I was particularly interested in one of these disclosures, which came in the shape of a video that the Pentagon had refused to release despite a Freedom of Information Act request.

When WikiLeaks did release the video, it was obvious why the US generals had wanted to keep it secret. Three years earlier, I had been in Baghdad when a US helicopter machine-gunned and fired rockets at a group of civilians on the groundwho its pilots claimed were armed insurgents, killing or wounding many of them.

Journalists in Iraq were disbelieving about the US militarys claims because the dead included two reporters from the Reuters news agency. Norwas it likely that insurgents would have been walking in the open with their weapons when a US Apache helicopter was overhead.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

We could not prove anything until WikiLeaks made public the film from the Apache. Viewing it still has the power to shock: the pilots are cock-a-hoop as they hunt their prey,includingpeople in a vehicle who stopto help the wounded, saying, Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards, and, Ha, ha, I hit them. Anybody interested in why the US failed in Iraq should have a look.

The WikiLeaks revelations in 2010 and in 2016 are the present-day equivalent of the release by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971 of the Pentagon Papers, unmasking the true history of the US engagement in the Vietnam War. They are, in fact, of even greater significance because they are more wide-ranging and provide an entry point into the world as the US government really sees it.

PA

PA

GETTY IMAGES

AP

PA

PA

GETTY IMAGES

AP

The disclosures were probably the greatest journalistic scoop in history, and newspapers such asThe New York Timesrecognised this by the vast space they gave to the revelations. Corroboration of their importance has been grimly confirmed by the rage of the US security establishment and its overseas allies, and the furious determination with which they have pursued Assange,the co-founder of WikiLeaks.

Daniel Ellsberg is rightly treated as a hero who revealed the truth about Vietnam, but Assange, whose actions were very similar to Ellsbergs, is held in Belmarsh high-security prison. He faces a hearing in London this week to decide whether he will beextraditedfrom the UK to the US on spying charges. If extradited, he stands a good chance of being sentenced to 175 years in the US prison system under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Ever since Assange orchestrated the release of documents through WikiLeaks, he has been the target of repeated official attempts to discredit him or, at the very least, to muddy the waters in a case that should be all about freedom of speech.

The initial bid to demonise Assange came immediately after the first release of documents, claiming that it would cost the lives of people who were named. The US government still argues that lives were put at risk by WikiLeaks, although it has never produced evidence for this.

On the contrary,the US counter-intelligence official who was in charge of the Pentagons investigation into the impact of the WikiLeaksdisclosures admitted in evidence in 2013 that there was not a single instance of an individual being killed by enemy forces as a result of what WikiLeaks had done.

Brigadier General Robert Carr, head of the Pentagons Information Review Task Force, told the sentencing hearing for Chelsea Manning that his initial claim that an individual named by WikiLeaks had been killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan was incorrect. The name of the individual was not in the disclosures, he admitted.

On the day the WikiLeaks revelations were made public, I had a pre-arranged meeting in Kabul with a US official who asked what the coding on the top of the leaked papers was. When I read this out, he was dismissive about the extent to which the deep secrets of the US state were being revealed.

I learned later the reason for his relaxed attitude. The database Manning had accessed was called SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router), which is a US military internet system. After 9/11,it was used to make sure that confidential information available to one part of the US government was available to others. The number of people with the right security clearance who could theoretically access SIPRNet was about 3 million, although the number with the correct password, while still substantial, would have been much fewer.

The US government is not so naive as to put real secrets on a system whose purpose was to be open to so many people, including a low-ranking sergeant such asChelsea Manning. Sensitive materials from defence attaches and the like were sent through alternative,more secure channels. Had the US security services really been using a system as insecure as SIPRNet to sendthe names of those whose lives would be in danger if their identity weredisclosed, they soon wouldhave run short of recruits.

The false accusation that lives had been lost, or could have been lost, because of WikiLeaks damaged Assange. More damaging by far are the allegations that he has faced ofthe rape and sexual molestation of two women in Sweden in 2010. He denies the allegations, buttheyhavecondemned him to permanent status as a pariah in the eyes of many. The Swedish prosecutor discontinued the rape investigation last year because of time elapsed, but this makes no difference for those who feel that anything Assange has said or done is permanently tainted and that the WikiLeaks disclosures are only a tangential issue. Likewise, much of the media views Assanges character and alleged behaviour as the only story worth covering. Although information about SIPRNet and General Carrs evidence was published long ago, few journalists seem to be aware of this.

But it is not because of anything that may have happened in Sweden that Assange is threatened with extradition to the US to face prosecution under the Espionage Act. The charges all relate to the release of government secrets, the sort of thing that all journalists should aspire to do, and many have done in Britain and the US without being subject to official sanctions.

Compare the British governments eagerness to detain Assange with its lack of interest in pursuing whoeverleaked the secret cables of the British ambassador to the US, Kim Darroch, to theMail on Sundaylast year. His negative comments about Donald Trump provoked an angry reaction from the president that forced Darroch to resign.

Assange has made disclosures about the activities of the US government that are more significant than the revelations in the Pentagon Papers. That is why he has been pursued to this day, and his punishment is so much more severe than anything inflicted on Daniel Ellsberg.

Follow this link:
With WikiLeaks, Julian Assange did what all journalists should aspire to do - The Independent

LONDON The United States government began laying out its extradition case against Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, in court on Monday by arguing that he had put lives at risk and was no better than an ordinary criminal.

Reporting or journalism is not an excuse for criminal activities or a license to break ordinary criminal laws, James Lewis, a lawyer representing the U.S. government, told the court.

Mr. Assange has been indicted on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents and he could face as many as 175 years in prison if found guilty on all charges.

His lawyers will begin presenting their defense later in the week.

Mr. Assanges appearance in Woolwich Crown Court was the latest twist in a saga that stretches back to 2010, when he began publishing secret American military and diplomatic documents that were provided by the former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who was convicted at a court-martial in 2013 of leaking the documents.

From the outset, Mr. Assanges case has raised profound First Amendment issues.

He is accused of conspiring with Ms. Manning to break into a classified military network under another users identity. The subsequent disclosures included a classified military video showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters in Baghdad that killed a dozen people, including two employees of the Reuters news agency.

To his defenders, dozens of whom gathered outside the courtroom in a show of support, Mr. Assange, 48, is the victim of a politically driven prosecution.

Mr. Lewis, the lawyer for the U.S. government, told the court on Monday that the charges against Mr. Assange were not connected to the publication of materials demonstrating wrongdoing by American military forces or embarrassing officials, but for publishing specific classified documents that contained unredacted names of innocent people who risked their safety and freedom to aid the United States and its allies.

These are ordinary criminal charges and any person, journalist or source who hacks or attempts to gain unauthorized access to a secure system or aids and abets others to do so is guilty of computer misuse, he said.

Mr. Assange has largely receded from public view after he was dragged out of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London in April. He had found refuge in the embassy for seven years to avoid extradition to Sweden over rape allegations. He denied those charges, and the case has since been dropped.

His strange existence at the embassy, where he lived with his cat in a small corner room, helped him become perhaps the worlds most famous self-proclaimed political refugee.

He continued to run his internet group, hold news conferences and wave to admirers from an embassy balcony. But with the departure in 2017 of Ecuadors leftist president, Rafael Correa, who had granted him asylum, Mr. Assanges days in the embassy were numbered.

By the time the Metropolitan Police in London dragged him from the embassy in April, he looked haggard and disheveled.

For the last year, he has been held at Belmarsh Prison, which is next to the courtroom where his extradition case will be heard over the next month.

Mr. Assanges lawyers, in pretrial motions, suggested that they would cast the prosecution as politically motivated and argue that their client was simply acting as a journalist and publisher.

Mark Summers, one of Mr. Assanges lawyers, has said that prosecuting his client could have a chilling effect on press freedom.

This is part of an avowed war on whistle-blowers to include investigative journalists and publishers, Mr. Summers told the court last year.

Mr. Assanges legal team has also sought to tie their client to President Trump, telling the court that former Representative Dana Rohrabacher of California, an ally of the president, had offered a pardon to Mr. Assange on Mr. Trumps behalf if the WikiLeaks founder were to say that Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

The White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, has called the suggestion of a pardon offer a complete fabrication and a total lie.

View post:
Julian Assange Faces Hearing on Extradition to the U.S. - The New York Times

By KIERAN FINNANE

Last updated 13 February 2020, 10.33am (minor edits).

The petition was straightforward: that the Town Council call on the Australian government to demand the release of Julian Assange and arrange his repatriation to Australia. It was signed by 111 Central Australians.

Right: Mr Assange being removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after the country withdrew his asylum status. The photograph heads a petition to Free Julian Assange on change.org, started by veteran broadcaster Phillip Adams.

It was presented to council at last months ordinary meeting and was on the agenda for debate in last nights community development committee meeting, with Councillor Jimmy Cocking in the chair.

As it came up, a flurry of consternation. Cr Eli Melky left the chamber declaring a conflict of interest: the American government is a major client of his business.

Cr Jamie de Brenni grumbled that he is not a member of the UN or a Minister and that he would like to get on with talking about core business things like reporting on the record number of entries (600+) in the Alice Prize.

Cr Glen Auricht wanted to shut down debate all together: it was in real conflict with our community, we have a very large American contingent in town who work with the town on many many issues.

Organisers of the petition were in the public gallery. Thats the problem, one of them called out.

It was a direct conflict of interest for the council to be involved in any way with this petition, continued Cr Auricht.

A bit of background: Julian Assange is in Australian citizen, and as such he entitled to consular protection by the Australian Government. His supporters are concerned that the governments efforts are not great and the government is saying nothing to reassure them.

Mr Assange is the founder of Wikileaks, which shot to international prominence in 2010 when it made public a cache of military documents on the Afghan and Iraq wars, leaked by former US soldier Chelsea Manning. The release included footage of a US helicopter shooting Iraqi civilians arguably a war crime.

Mr Assange is currently gaoled in Britain, facing extradition proceedings to the United States. There he would be tried for multiple offences under the Espionage Act, and if convicted, could spend decades in gaol the possible sentence is calculated as up to 175 years.

He has become the focus of an international campaign, concerned to protect his human rights including his right to humane treatment in prison and fair access to his legal team as well as the right to free speech and a free press more broadly.

Supporters include the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 324 parliamentarians from its 47 member countries. In January they passed a resolution on media freedom, declaring that the detention and prosecution of the Wikileaks founder sets a dangerous precedent for journalists and calling for his prompt release.

What Mr Assange did in Wikileaks, it is argued, is what many a traditional news medium has done and will continue to do publish, in the public interest, leaked material, even classified material, and protect sources. Examples in the Australian media have been made famous by AFP raids in 2019 on the offices of the ABC and the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst.

In our 26-year history, the Alice Springs News has frequently dealt with leaked material and whistleblowers. Doing so is part of that check upon government which no constitution has ever been able to provide, as proclaimed under our masthead in a famous quote from the Chicago Tribune.

Back to the council chamber: Cr Cocking coolly explained that the organisers had brought the petition to him to submit to council as the level of government closest to community. If there was support in the room, council could write a letter to the federal government.

Cr Marli Banks thanked the members of the public attending, acknowledging that they feel passionately about this issue.

She said she understood that other Elected Members may feel it is not council business, but she was happy to give the motion to write a letter her support.

Deputy Mayor Matt Paterson said he would not support it, as it is well outside our obligations.

Others councils have done it, interjected a supporter in the public gallery.

Cr Banks said she was happy to second the motion, as a matter of natural justice.

The motion will now carry through to be voted on at the Ordinary Meeting at the end of the month.

Go here to read the rest:
Cr Auricht: All the way with USA on fate of Assange - Alice Springs News Online