Stockholm -- Swedish prosecutors said Monday they are reopening a rape case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a month after he was removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. They said they will seek his extradition after he has served his 50-week prison term in Britain for jumping bail.

The Swedish move may leave British authorities to decide whether to extradite Assange to Sweden or to the United States, where he is wanted separately for allegedly hacking into a Pentagon computer.

Eva-Marie Persson, Sweden's deputy director of public prosecutions, told a news conference in Stockholm that "there is still a probable cause to suspect that Assange committed a rape." She added: "It is my assessment that a new questioning of Assange is required."

Swedish prosecutors filed preliminary charges -- a step short of formal charges -- against Assange after he visited the country in 2010, following complaints from two Swedish women who said they were the victims of sex crimes committed by Assange.

A case of alleged sexual misconduct was dropped in 2017 when the statute of limitations expired. That left a rape allegation, but officials couldn't pursue it because Assange was living at the embassy and there was no prospect of bringing him to Sweden.

The statute of limitations on that case expires in August 2020. Assange has denied wrongdoing, asserting that they were politically motivated and that the sex was consensual.

Persson said a European arrest warrant will be issued for Assange.

The 47-year-old Australian met the women in connection with a lecture in August 2010 in Stockholm. One was involved in organizing an event for Sweden's center-left Social Democratic Party and offered to host Assange at her apartment. The other was in the audience.

A police officer who heard the women's accounts decided there was reason to suspect they were victims of sex crimes and handed the case to a prosecutor.

Neither of the alleged victims has been named publicly.

A lawyer representing one of the women called the prosecutor's decision to reopen the case "very gratifying" on Monday, and said she and her clients hoped justice could be served, noting that prosecutors would need to move quickly in light of statute of limitations expiring next year.

Julian Assange's Swedish lawyer Per E. Samuelsen told Swedish broadcaster SVT on Monday he was "very surprised" by the decision to reopen the case.

"I do not understand the Swedish prosecutor's ... reasoning for reopening a 10-year old case," he said.

WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hraffnson said Monday that Sweden's "investigation has been dropped before and its reopening will give Julian a chance to clear his name." Hrafnsson argued that the "case has been mishandled throughout," and claimed there had "always been political pressure surrounding" it.

Assange left Sweden for Britain in September 2010. In November that year, a Stockholm court approved a request to detain Assange for questioning.

The Australian secret-spiller took refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, claiming he feared it would lead to extradition to the U.S.

After almost seven years holed up in the building he was arrested by British police April 11 after Ecuador revoked his political asylum, accusing him of everything from meddling in the nation's foreign affairs to poor hygiene.

Assange faces a maximum of four years in prison in Sweden.

He is currently in London's Belmarsh Prison serving a 50-week sentence for jumping bail in 2012. He is also being held on a U.S. extradition warrant for allegedly hacking into a Pentagon computer in conjunction with former U.S. intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

Read more from the original source:
Julian Assange rape case to be reopened in Sweden setting up ...

Pamela Anderson has described Julian Assange as the worlds most innocent man and said a fight was on to save his life, after the actor and model visited the WikiLeaks founder at Belmarsh prison.

She was accompanied by the websites editor-in-chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson, for what WikiLeaks described as Assanges first social visit since he was arrested by police after Ecuador revoked the political asylum granted to him at the countrys London embassy.

A struggle over a US request for Assanges extradition is under way after he was jailed for just under a year for breaching bail conditions to avoid being extradited to Sweden. Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition over sexual assault allegations, which he denies.

An arrest warrant for Assange was issued in August 2010 for two separate sexual assault allegations in Sweden. Police questioned him in Stockholm, where he denied the allegations. After returning to the UK, he feared that if he were extradited to Sweden he might be extradited on to the US, where he could face charges over WikiLeaks publication of secret US government files.

In December 2010 he appeared at an extradition hearing in the UK, where he was granted bail. Following a legal battle, the courts ruled Assange should be extradited to Sweden. The WikiLeaks founder entered the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2012. He was granted political asylum, and remained there until his arrest.

In May 2017, Swedish authorities dropped their investigations. However, the British police warrant for his arrest for skipping bail still remained. Lawyers for Assange failed in January 2018 to have the warrant torn up, arguing it had lost its purpose and its function.

Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition and the US has charged Assange with 'a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer.'

Jamie Grierson, Home affairs correspondent

He does not deserve to be in a supermax prison. He has never committed a violent act. He is an innocent person, Anderson said outside the prison in south-east London, which is a maximum-security jail but holds a range of prisoners.

Anderson said he was really cut off from everybody and had not been able to access the internet, use a library or speak to his children.

He is a good man, he is an incredible person. I love him, I cant imagine what he has been going through, said Anderson, who was wearing what appeared to be a cape covered with text that made references to prison, tyranny and Oliver Cromwell.

She tweeted a link to a Wikipedia page for John Lilburne, an English Leveller who was a friend of Cromwell but whose opposition to the policies of his regime led to his trial for sedition in 1649. She also tweeted a photograph of a handwritten letter that appeared to have been signed by her and another celebrity supporter of Assange, the fashion designer Vivienne Westwood.

We need to save his life. That is how serious it is, Anderson said.

Hrafnsson, who last week criticised austerity and cutbacks in the prison system and said Assange usually spends 23 hours a day in his cell, added: He has lost weight but his spirit is strong and that is the most important thing.

During a court appearance last Thursday, Assange declined a chance to consent to his extradition to the US in a hearing at Westminster magistrates court, where lawyers for Washington began pressing the case to take him across the Atlantic. Ben Brandon, the counsel for the US government, said the charges related to one of the largest compromises of information in US history.

Swedish prosecutors have said they are considering reopening the investigation into rape and sexual assault allegations against Assange.

View original post here:
Pamela Anderson visits 'innocent man' Julian Assange in ...

May 3 was World Press Freedom Day. The annual observance usually focuses on the World Press Freedom Index published each year by Reporters without Borders. Break out the champagne! The United States ranked 48th of 179 countries this year, falling three places from 2018.

A day earlier, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared in court in London (the United Kingdom ranked 33rd on the Index this year) to contest his proposed extradition to the United States. He faces spurious US hacking charges framed to avoid taking official notice of the indisputable fact that his actual crimes consist entirely of engaging in journalism.

Not a good World Press Freedom Day look for the UK or the US. But the plodding pace of the UKs judicial system his next hearing comes at the end of May, a second one is scheduled for mid-June, and the matter may drag on for months offers an opportunity to turn things around and get them moving in the right direction.

Reporters Without Borders postures as politically neutral, but their current ranking of the US is largely based not on a deterioration in actual press freedom, but rather on US president Donald Trumps big mouth. He says mean things some true, some false, some downright stupid about the media.

Trump could redeem himself on the press freedom front, essentially wiping the slate clean, by pardoning Assange for all alleged crimes committed prior to May 1st, 2019.

Even better, he could publicly justify the pardon, pointing out that this is solely and entirely a political prosecution premised in the notion that its a crime to embarrass politicians by revealing verifiably true information about their actions.

Alternatively, US Justice Department prosecutors could save him the trouble by just dropping the charges and withdrawing the extradition request.

A pardon and public statement from Trump would be better, though, both for press freedom and as red meat for his own political base. After all, the American politician most frequently and badly embarrassed by Assanges work is Trumps own bete noire, Hillary Clinton. The WikiLeaks Cablegate dump exposed her plan to have US diplomats bug the offices of their UN counterparts. Then WikiLeaks doubled down and outed her for the DNCs rigging of the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Failing both of those perfectly reasonable courses of action on the US governments part, the UK courts could find a reason to free Assange (currently serving 50 weeks for jumping bail on charges that were non-existent rather than merely spurious) instead of handing him over.

Whatever just pick one and make it happen, guys. The most important outcome here is a free Julian Assange. The bonus material would be explaining why: Hes a political prisoner and journalism is not a crime.

See the article here:
Julian Assange: An Opportunity for the US and the UK to ...

The First Amendment and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act collided last month when the UK arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on, among other things, a US extradition request for computer crime. He has since been sentenced to 50 weeks in a British prison. For roughly seven years before his arrest, hed been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, but on April 11, the Ecuadorian government withdrew his asylum. Now the UK courts will evaluate the USs request to send Assange to Virginia to stand trial in federal court for a single felony charge of conspiracy to commit unauthorized access to a government computer, a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Tor Ekeland is a Brooklyn lawyer, and represents people accused of computer crimes in federal and state courts nationally. He can be found on Twitter at @TorEkelandPLLC.

After Assanges arrest, many reached out to ask me about the CFAA. For years, I've represented hackers in federal criminal cases nationally involving the CFAA, including Lauri Love, whom the US unsuccessfully tried to extradite from the UK. The US indicted Love in three separate federal courts in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, for hacking of a number of government sites including NASA, the FBI, the United States Sentencing Commission, and the Bureau of Prisons. This was part of #OpLastResort, in protest of the CFAA prosecution and death of computer science pioneer Aaron Swartz, whose suicide in 2013 was widely viewed as resulting from a draconian CFAA prosecution. Whether intended or not, the CFAA makes it easy for a prosecutor to bring felony computer crime charges even when theres little or no harm.

The CFAA is the federal government's primary anti-hacking statute. Created in 1984, it prohibits unauthorized access to a computer, system, or network and unauthorized deletion, alteration, or blocking of access to, data or information. It is both a civil and criminal statute, meaning that people and businesses can use it to sue each other for private wrongs, and the government can use it to put you in jail for public wrongs. Its dual nature gives rise to a problematic feature: most of the law interpreting it comes from civil cases where the stakes aren't as high as in a criminal case. Thus, the quality of reasoning in civil cases, despite frequent lip service from courts to the contrary, isn't as robust as in a hard-fought criminal case. Because at the end of the day, if you lose a civil case you just lose money. If you lose a criminal case, you lose your liberty. But the CFAA doesnt clearly tell you all the ways it can be used to take away your liberty.

The core problem with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is that it doesn't clearly define one of the central things it prohibits: unauthorized access to a computer.

The core problem with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is that it doesn't clearly define one of the central things it prohibits: unauthorized access to a computer. The courts across the country aren't any help on this front, issuing conflicting decisions both with other jurisdictions and often within their own. Under the CFAA, what is a felony in one jurisdiction is legal in another. This lack of definitional clarity allows prosecutors to charge felonies even when the harms are minimal, questionable, or just political views that DOJ doesn't like. This is a serious problem, given that much political speech and protest these days is done with computers. And DOJ has previously used the CFAA in a politically charged prosecution.

In 2011, DOJ charged the politically outspoken Aaron Swartz under the CFAA for going into an open server closet at MIT, a mecca of modern American hacking, and downloading academic articlesmany of which were publicly fundedfor public distribution. Even though the extent of any harm was questionablethis was a mere copying of articlesDOJ charged him with felony unauthorized access to a computer, unauthorized damage to a protected computer, felony aiding and abetting of both, and wire fraud. He faced a maximum sentence of decades and large fines. The punishment sought was strikingly disproportionate to the alleged harm.

On January 11, 2013, Aaron Swartz killed himself before there was any trial. Swartz's death was a loss to our society, given the innovations he contributed to it, like codeveloping RSS and cofounding Reddit. Many, myself included, view his prosecution as a political one directed against Swartzs belief that information should be free.

Likewise, the Assange prosecution looks more like an attack on core political speech protected by the First Amendment than a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Assange is facing a single count indictment for conspiracy to violate the CFAA. The indictment stems from an incident in 2010 when Assange allegedly told then-Army private Chelsea Manning, who was leaking classified materials to Assange to be published on WikiLeaks, that he would help her crack a password to gain access to military computers. Prosecuting Assange for a computer crime sidesteps the elephant in the room: this is the prosecution of a publisher of information of interest and importance to the public about our government. The First Amendment protects the act of publishing that information. Therefore, the act being prosecuted is inextricably linked to the act of obtaining this information because the charged crime is conspiracy to access the system with the information of public import. Prison time for Assange might deter others from publishing information that exposes the inner workings of government.

Assange and WikiLeaks are publishers just like The New York Times. And if it was legal for The New York Times to publish the classified Pentagon Papers detailing the US' lies when it came to Vietnam, it's legal for WikiLeaks to do the same.

Assange's factually threadbare indictment doesn't give much indication of how strong a conspiracy case the government has.

The indictment dances around this issue by trying to limit everything to a technical computer crime conspiracy. The indictment accuses Assange of a single count of conspiring to hack a password to gain unauthorized access to a government computer. As such, it rests squarely in the anti hacking purpose of the CFAApreventing someone from hacking into a system. But note, under the CFAA it's not against the law to crack a password. You have to crack a password, and then use it to gain unauthorized access to a system. Gaining, attempting to gain, or conspiring to gain, access is the critical element. And Assange's factually threadbare indictment doesn't give much indication of how strong a conspiracy case the government has.

The indictment and its context make it obvious that DOJ is struggling with this issue and may bring more charges, including espionage charges, that will turn Assange's case into a First Amendment battle royale. The narrowness of the indictment and the fact that its theory of liability is based on conspiring to hack a passwordand not the theft and publication of informationis evidence that DOJ is dancing around the issue. We know that a grand jury is reviewing the possibility of another indictment against Assange, because Chelsea Manning is in jail for refusing to testify against Assange in front of it. And we know, because of the extradition treaty with the UK, that the US has 65 days to submit its final charges from the time it submitted its extradition request. This means that DOJ has until the middle of June to bring final charges.

If DOJ brings espionage charges, it's going to bring out the First Amendment heavy-hitters. The Espionage Act has a long history of being used to silence political dissent going back to President John Adams administration, which used the Alien and Sedition Acts to prosecute critics of its foreign policy. In the 20th century, the Alien and Sedition Acts turned into the Espionage Act, which is used to prosecute whistleblowers more than spies. It's no coincidence that the first Supreme Court First Amendment cases involve Espionage Act prosecutions for political speech.

DOJ can try and dodge the First Amendment implications of its actions by sticking with the current indictment. If so, Assange has some obvious defenses. For instance, the government has to prove that there was a conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to a government computer. Again, it's not against the law to hack a password, but it is to hack a password and then use it to gain access. This requires the government to prove that when Assange agreed to the conspiracy, he had the same mental state necessary to be found guilty of committing that criminal object of the conspiracy. For this reason, conspiracy is often called a crime of two intents. The government not only has to prove that Assange agreed to conspire, and that an act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by one of the conspirators, but also that Assange had the same intent necessary to convict him of actually gaining unauthorized access to a government computer. To be convicted of conspiring to rob a bank, you have to have really intended to rob the bank. But it's possible that Assange was just playing along with Manning, or yessing her, or never agreed to participate at all. Thats for a jury for decide.

There's a lot of problems with the Assange prosecution just like there are with the CFAA. More than there's space for here. Stay tuned though, because there's surely more to come. Whatever you think of Assange, his prosecution is a fraught one for press freedom. That much is clear from the indictments careful avoidance of the First Amendment elephant in the room, and the current Grand Jury contemplating more charges against Assange. Its also fraught because the prosecution seems to be not really directed at deterring or punishing the actual hackingfor which Manning has done her timebut at punishing those who publish the government's dirty secrets.

WIRED Opinion publishes pieces written by outside contributors and represents a wide range of viewpoints. Read more opinions here. Submit an op-ed atopinion@wired.com

Excerpt from:
The Law Being Used to Prosecute Julian Assange Is Broken

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrives at the Westminster Magistrates Court after he was arrested in London on April 11, 2019. (Reuters / Hannah McKay)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Julian Assanges strange seven-year residence in Ecuadors London embassy has ended, and Assange, thanks to the American president he helped elect, is now in British custody facing a US extradition request. The question now is what the freshly unsealed Trump Justice Department indictment against him means, and doesnt meanfor Assange, for the British courts, which must decide whether to hand him over, and for American press freedom.Ad Policy

Compared with the worst that Assange and his supporters have always fearedblack-hooded rendition, indictment under the Espionage Act, the death penaltythe indictment, filed under seal in 2017, may seem like good news. Its briefsix pages. He is accused of conspiring with Chelsea Manning to hack one password on a classified government database. Theres no criminal allegation of spying, nothing touching Russia or the DNC, no broader list of WikiLeaks co-conspirators. As for punishment, while hacking a government password is a felony, the charge carries a maximum prison term of five yearsless time than Assanges voluntary confinement in his diplomatic London quarters.

The indictment focuses on one brief period in March 2010. According to the indictment, Manning, who had already leaked the vast Defense Department databases exposing an assortment of US abuseswhat WikiLeaks called the Iraq War Logswas trying to hack into a particular database without her own credentials. The indictment, citing decrypted chats, says Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password.

This is a narrow offense. It also separates Assange, at least on technical grounds, from journalists who receive leaked material but who dont directly participate in extracting secret files. Its the difference between The New York Times Neil Sheehan receiving the photocopied Pentagon Papers from Daniel Ellsberg, and a reporter actively breaking into a government office with a crowbar to yank the papers from their drawers. In the digital realm, that difference has sometimes tripped up journalists before Assange: In my journalism-ethics class every year, we examine the troubling, and ultimately tragic, case of a Cincinnati Enquirer reporter who in 1998 torpedoed an otherwise-brilliant investigative series on the Chiquita corporation by repeatedly hacking into that massively corrupt companys voicemail system. That single illegal act gave an opening for Chiquita to successfully demand that the Enquirer un-publish and renounce the entire series, and it allowed prosecutors to threaten a criminal charge to force the reporter to name his source.Related Article

I suspect some reporters and some press-freedom advocates will see Assanges direct involvement in password-hacking as grounds to walk away from the case. The man violated journalistic norms, goes the argumentand whether his hacking counts as misguided narcissism or a principled act of civil disobedience, its no longer about freedom of the press.

Yet read that six-page indictment more closely, and the alarm bells should sound afresh. Heres why: Assange and Manning are not just being charged with a simple act of hacking. The indictment explicitly describes Assanges password hack as part of a broader WikiLeaks conspiracy to publicly disseminate the information on its website. The indictment takes note of WikiLeaks use of a cloud-based dropbox for confidential document dumps.

Most significantly, the indictmentagain relying, irony of ironies, on hacked and decrypted Jabber chatsdelves deep into the source-publisher relationship, noting that Assange encouraged a weary Mannings leaking, and then quoting this bit of chat:Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

MANNING: After this upload, thats all I really have got left.

ASSANGE: Curious eyes never run dry in my experience.

Theres the rub. By actively hacking a password, Assange may have committed a crime. But conspiring to disseminate leaked information is something countless reporters do every day. Cloud-based confidential document dumps and other security measures specified in the indictment are now staples of investigative reporting, discussed openly at conferences and advertised on muckraking websites. Most significantly: Cajoling, encouraging, wheedling, and nurturing sources who have access to secret information is at the heart of independent journalism.

What we have in the Assange indictment, in other words, is a narrow but still-consequential attack on the practice of investigative journalism. The same attack is evident in another aspect of this case that has received too little attention: the jailing of Chelsea Manning for her refusal to cooperate with this investigation. From the scope of todays indictment, its clear that the Justice Department sought Mannings cooperation in building their conspiracy case. In the long history of American prosecutors seeking to compel testimony from reporters, I cannot think of another case in which a source has volunteered to go to jail to protect a publisher. Manning is an individual of exceptional courage and integrity, who deserves respect and defense from any reporter whos ever been passed a file folder or flash drive.

Julian Assange remains a confounding, contradictory character. But this indictment has nothing to do his atrocious political judgment in 2016, his unreasonable expectations as a guest of the Ecuadoreans, or the sometimes-debatable ethical standards guiding WikiLeaks editorial decisions. You can even argue that in stepping over the publishing line from receiving leaks to active hacking, Assange jeopardized Manning and WikiLeaks itself. But this indictment raises far more consequential questions, especially coming from an administration already committed to attacking press freedom on multiple fronts. In that context, this is a politically motivated prosecution. At bottom, it is about whether investigative journalists and publishers, from little community news outlets to transnational publishing platforms, enjoy First Amendment protection in their relationships with confidential sources. It is, in other words, about the future vigor of investigative reporting.

Read the rest here:
Julian Assanges Arrest Should Worry Anyone Who Cares About ...

A struggle over the US request for Julian Assanges extradition will open in court on Thursday morning, a day after the WikiLeaks founder was jailed for just under a year for breaching bail conditions to avoid being extradited to Sweden.

Wednesdays sentence was decried as an outrage by Kristinn Hrafnsson, the editor-in-chief of the whistleblowing website, who said the hearing at Westminster magistrates court to oppose Assanges extradition would be the start of the big fight a process he said would be a question of life and death for Mr Assange.

A judge largely rejected the mitigating factors put forward by lawyers for Assange who took refuge in Ecuadors embassy to London in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault allegations, which he has denied and told the 47-year-old it was difficult to envisage a more serious example of the offence.

You remained there for nearly seven years, exploiting your privileged position to flout the law and advertise internationally your disdain for the law of this country, said Judge Deborah Taylor, as she sentenced him at Southwark crown court.

Your actions undoubtedly affected the progress of the Swedish proceedings. Even though you did cooperate initially, it was not for you to decide the nature or extent of your cooperation with the investigations. They could not be effectively progressed, and were discontinued, not least because you remained in the embassy.

Assange, who was arrested last month when Ecuador revoked his political asylum and invited Metropolitan police officers inside the countrys Knightsbridge diplomatic premises, had written a letter in which he expressed regret for his actions but claimed he had been left with no choice.

I apologise unreservedly to those who consider that I have disrespected them by the way I have pursued my case. This is not what I wanted or intended, he said in the letter read out by his lawyer, Mark Summers QC.

I found myself struggling with terrifying circumstances for which neither I nor those from whom I sought advice could work out any remedy. I did what I thought at the time was the best and perhaps the only thing that could be done which I hoped might lead to a legal resolution being reached between Ecuador and Sweden that would protect me from the worst of my fears.

WikiLeaks releases about 470,000 classified military documents concerning American diplomacy and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It later releases a further tranche of more than 250,000 classified US diplomatic cables.

A Swedish prosecutor issues a European arrest warrant for Assange over sexual assault allegations involving two Swedish women. Assange denies the claims.

A British judge rules that Assange can be extradited to Sweden. Assange fears Sweden will hand him over to US authorities who could prosecute him.

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention says Assange has been 'arbitrarily detained' and should be able to claim compensation from Britain and Sweden. Britain and Sweden rebuff the non-binding ruling.

Assangeis questionedin a two-day interview over the allegations at the Ecuadorian embassy by Swedish authorities.

Nigel Farage is spotted visiting the Ecuadorian embassy.

Britain refuses Ecuador's request to accord Assange diplomatic status, which would allow him to leave the embassy without being arrested.

Police arrest Assange at the embassy after his asylum was withdrawn. Scotland Yard confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition. Assange has been charged by the US with 'a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer.'

He is jailed for 50 weeksin the UK for breaching his bail conditions back in 2012. An apology letter from Assange is read out in court, but the judge rules that he had engaged in a deliberate attempt to evade justice.

Assange, wearing a black blazer and shorn of the beard worn when police carried him out of the embassy last month, was told by the judge that his continued residence there had cost 16m of taxpayers money in ensuring that when you did leave, you were brought to justice.

It is essential to the rule of law that nobody is above or beyond the reach of the law, said the judge, who said Assanges written apology was the first recognition that he regretted his actions.

The judge was met with cries of shame on you from Assanges supporters in the gallery when she sentenced him to 50 weeks in prison two weeks short of the maximum under guidelines and directed that time spent on remand since his arrest on 11 April would count against it. Assange turned and raised a clenched fist to supporters as he was led away.

The WikiLeaks founders lawyer had earlier laid out a number of mitigating factors, claiming Assange lived in fear of being rendered from Sweden to the US, where politicians had talked of having him assassinated.

The case of Chelsea Manning and the conditions in which the US military whistleblower was kept was also mentioned, as was the case of individuals who were rendered from Sweden to the US in chains and after being drugged for transatlantic flights.

Summers told the court the Australian had been gripped by fears that his work with WikiLeaks would provoke rendition to Guantanamo Bay or the US, where he could face the death penalty.

As threats rained down on him from America, they overshadowed everything as far as he was concerned, he said. They dominated his thoughts. They were not invented by him, they were gripping him throughout.

He said the fact Assange chose indefinite detention in small rooms at the Ecuadorian embassy, in a state of depression and pain for various medical ailments, rather than spend 12 months in a British jail, showed the extent of his fears.

Speaking on the steps of the court afterwards, Hrafnsson said the sentence was vindictive, adding: It doesnt give us a lot of faith in the UK justice system for the fight ahead.

Drawing a comparison with the sentence of Jack Shepherd, who killed a woman in a speedboat crash and later fled to Georgia, he added: And may I point out, just in comparison, that the so-called speedboat killer got six months for not showing up in court to hear his sentencing for manslaughter.

Shepherd was given credit for his guilty plea, while Assange denied the bail offence and was convicted by a court.

Go here to read the rest:
Julian Assange legal team begin 'big fight' over extradition ...

A British judge has sentenced WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to 50 weeks in prison for jumping bail in 2012. AP

LONDON WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, appearing before a British court Thursday, said he would notsurrender to a U.S.extradition request as he defended his efforts to steal classified American government records as journalism.

"Notfor doing journalism that'swon many, many awards and affectedmany people," the Australian, 47,said by video link from Belmarsh Prison, a high-security jail in south-east London. Assange looked relaxed, dressed in jeans, a white T-shirt and a dark blazer as he addressed Judge Michael Snow atWestminster Magistrates court.

Assange was not handcuffed during his brief appearance.

Thursday's hearing was the first in a case likely to drag on for months, if not years. U.S. authorities are seeking Assange's extradition because theDepartment of Justicehascharged him with conspiring to break into a Pentagon computer system to reveal a large cache of top-secret files on everything from the war in Afghanistan to diplomatic letters between State Department officials and U.S. ambassadors.

The court on Thursday scheduled a further procedural hearing datefor May 30. Snow said the first substantive action related to the case would likely commenceJune 12.

"The charges relateto one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the U.S.," said Ben Brandon, a lawyer representing the U.S. government.

Brandon said that the documents Assange downloaded from the Pentagon computer included 90,000 war reports related to Afghanistan, 400,000 from the Iraq War, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessments and 250,000 State Department cables.

About three dozen activists gathered outside the court to protest Assange's potential extradition. They waved banners and heldup photos of Assange with his mouth covered with the American flag. "Civilized people do not extradite publishers of war crimes to war criminal regimes, do they?" one such signread.

"Free Assange" and "No extradition" read others.

"It's about journalistic freedom," Icelandic investigative reporter and WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said speaking to reporters outside the court.

Some protesters later temporarily blocked a road outside the court.

The hearingcomes one day after a separate British court sentenced Assangeto 50 weeks in a British prison for skipping bail seven years ago and seeking refuge in Ecuador's Embassy in London.Assangeapologized to the court and said he was "struggling with terrifying circumstances" when he decided to hole up in the embassy.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

When he arrived atSouthwark Crown Court in a prison van on Wednesday,Assange raised a clenched fist, a gesture he repeated as he left the court to be returned to prison. He white hair and long beard were trimmed, a marked contrast to Assange's disheveled appearance when he was carried out head-first of Ecuador's embassy on April 11, looking frail and disoriented, by British police.

The U.S. alleges that Assange, who is known for his exceptional computer hacking skills, assisted Chelsea Manning, then a soldier in the U.S. Army, in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers. WikiLeaks subsequently published thousands of classified U.S. military and diplomatic cables and images, including video footage allegedly showing U.S. soldiers killing civilians in Iraq.

Manning served nearly seven years of a 35-year sentence for theft and espionage for helping to deliver classified documents to WikiLeaks. Manning's sentence was later commuted by former President Barack Obama and she was released in 2017.

Assange faces up to five years in a U.S. prison if convicted of conspiracy charges.

Journalist or criminal?Julian Assange notorious for leaks of US secrets

Assange was arrested last month inside the Ecuadorian embassy after the South American countryrevoked his political asylum. Hesought asylum in the embassy in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he was wanted for questioning over rape and sexual assault allegations.At the time, Assange's legal team believed that if he were extradited to Sweden he would subsequently be extradited to the U.S.

Assange denies the rape and sexual assault allegations, whichwere dropped because his residence in Ecuador's embassy stymied the investigation, andbecause the statute of limitations expired. Swedish prosecutors have indicated that they are considering a request from one of Assange's alleged victims to re-open the rape probe.

If that happens, Assange could facea competing new claim for extradition to Sweden.

A supporter of Julian Assange with a poster of the WikiLeaks founder joins other protesters to block a major road in front of Westminster Magistrates Court in London on May 2, 2019.(Photo: Frank Augstein, AP)

Anand Doobay, a London-based lawyer who specializes in extradition law, said that Assange's case isnow further complicated by his 50-week sentence. He said that extradition cases can take "a very long time" and that the decision may ultimately reside with Britain's secretary of state, who will need to be satisfied that Assange would not face the death penalty in the U.S. or be charged with additional crimes.

He said that if Sweden decided to renewits request for extradition based on the rape probe, the secretary of state would also need to decide which request to favor.

"There are significant legal obstacles for the U.S. case," said Daniela Nadj, a professor of law at Queen Mary, University of London, adding that "many questions need to be answered." Among them: If Sweden decidesto renew its extradition claim whether a rape allegation should take precedence over a hacking one.

"Right now Julian will be fighting a battle against despair and despondency," Lauri Love, a British activist who won a U.S.extradition appeal in 2018 for allegedly hacking into the computer systems of the FBI, U.S. Federal Reserve and NASA, told USA TODAY outside the court in London where he showed up to support Assange.

"He'll be facing the same worriesI had," Love, 34, who said he is a friend of Assange's, noted. "Being sent to a place where you have no friends, no family and where you are facing the prospect of facing many people who consider you to be the enemy."

Like what youre reading?: Download the USA TODAY app for more

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/05/02/julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-resists-us-extradition-in-court/3638113002/

See the original post:
Julian Assange: WikiLeaks founder resists US ... - usatoday.com

The WikiLeaks founder, who had lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012, delayed justice, the judge said. Jack Taylor/Getty Images hide caption

The WikiLeaks founder, who had lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012, delayed justice, the judge said.

Julian Assange has been sentenced to 50 weeks in prison by a British judge.

The controversial founder of WikiLeaks was arrested in April after being pushed out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he had been living since 2012, avoiding an international arrest warrant. That same day, he was convicted of jumping bail.

Judge Deborah Taylor said Assange's time in the embassy had cost British taxpayers the equivalent of nearly $21 million, and that he had sought asylum in a "deliberate attempt to delay justice."

Assange offered a written apology in court, claiming that his actions were a response to terrifying circumstances. He said he had been effectively imprisoned in the embassy; two doctors also provided medical evidence of the mental and physical effects of being confined.

The judge was not swayed by the arguments. "You were not living under prison conditions, and you could have left at any time to face due process with the rights and protections which the legal system in this country provides," she said.

Assange's prison sentence fell two weeks short of the 12-month maximum.

Supporters of the 47-year-old, who see him as a light shining truth on government abuses of power, shouted "Free Julian Assange" as the van that transported him left Southwark Crown Court.

Protesters congregated nearby, criticizing the mainstream media and reportedly repeating the words "Shame on you" to the judge.

Assange had been wanted for questioning about allegations of rape and sexual misconduct, and he had faced extradition to Sweden, but Ecuador granted him asylum. He has maintained that he is innocent.

Assange is scheduled for another court hearing Thursday, as he faces the possibility of extradition to the United States. The U.S. Justice Department has accused him of helping former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in cracking a password stored on Department of Defense computers. Authorities said the trove of classified documents that WikiLeaks eventually published threatened U.S. national security.

Manning was convicted and served more than six years in prison. Her 35-year sentence was commuted by then-President Barack Obama.

Federal investigators have also said that Assange and WikiLeaks played an integral role in the Russian attack on the 2016 presidential election. Prosecutors contend that Russia's military intelligence agency, the GRU, gave Assange emails it had pilfered during that time.

Swedish authorities dropped one case against him because it expired, but Assange may still face prosecution efforts in Sweden. After his arrest, more than 70 members of British Parliament signed a letter to support his extradition to Sweden if authorities there request it.

WikiLeaks called Assange's sentence on Wednesday "as shocking as it is vindictive." The organization said it has "grave concerns as to whether he will receive a fair extradition hearing in the UK."

WikiLeaks' Icelandic editor, Kristinn Hrafnsson, told reporters that Thursday's hearing would be the "big fight," a battle over Assange's extradition to the United States.

"What is at stake there could be a question of life and death for Mr. Assange," he said. "It is also a question of life and death for a major journalistic principle."

See original here:
Julian Assange Sentenced To 50 Weeks In Prison; Faces ...

Declaring that "nobody is above the law," Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor handed down close to the maximum sentence of a year, to chants of "shame on you" from the controversial figure's supporters.

Assange had tidied his appearance somewhat since his removal from the Ecuadorean Embassy and subsequent arrest last month, arriving at court with shorter hair and a groomed beard. His defence claimed he had breached bail in fear of extradition to Sweden or the US, including the possibility of being detained at Guantanamo Bay, tortured or executed.

The judge was handed a letter written by Assange explaining his reasoning for hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy to avoid charges of sexual assault in Sweden, that in "struggling through terrifying circumstances," he did what he "thought at the time was best or perhaps the only thing that [he] could have done."

Judge Taylor noted in a final assessment that Assange's bail breach was even more serious than the A1 category -- which covers "a failure to surrender represents deliberate attempt to evade or delay justice" -- put forward by the prosecution. Admonishing the defendant, she stated that it was "not for [him]" to choose whether or not to participate in justice, and noted that his stay at the embassy had cost 16 million ($20.9 million) of taxpayers' money.

The 47-year-old could now be extradited to the US to face charges of federal conspiracy for the release of classified government information in collusion with Chelsea Manning. Manning was imprisoned between 2010 and 2017 for her part in the leak, and is now once again in prison for refusing to testify against Assange.

Here is the original post:
Julian Assange sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for ...

By Oscar Grenfell 24 April 2019

WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange has spent most of the past two weeks in isolation at Belmarsh prison said Christine Assange, his mother, on Monday.

Assange had still not been able to receive any visits. Not even from his lawyers! Mrs. Assange said on Twitter on April 22. She added that his treatment had been outrageous, & appears punitive to continue to keep him isolated.

Mrs. Assange noted that Belmarsh has been dubbed the UKs Guantanamo, after the US military prison notorious for indefinite detention, torture, protracted isolation and other violations of human rights. It is where most British individuals charged with terrorism offences have been imprisoned.

Some 36 hours after she issued her tweet, Mrs. Assange stated on April 24: Julian has had one video conference with his lawyers & they will visit him at Belmarsh Prison on April 26. Many thanks to all those calling for this visit from his lawyers. WikiLeaks subsequently confirmed that Assange will have an in person visit with his legal team in the coming days.

Assange was arrested by UK police officers on April 11, who dragged the journalist out of the Ecuadorian embassy, as he shouted, the UK must resist. The WikiLeaks founder, a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, is being pursued by the Trump administration for exposing US war crimes.

The apparent denial of the WikiLeaks founders right to hold in person consultations with his legal counsel, in the days after his arrest and conviction on the bail charges, casts grave doubt that he will be afforded due process. It is a further indication that the Trump administrations request for Assanges extradition to the US and the resulting legal proceedings in Britain are a pseudo-judicial cover for an extraordinary rendition operation, aimed at placing the WikiLeaks publisher in the clutches of the war criminals and CIA torturers he has done so much to expose.

The reported isolation of Assange has been enforced in the lead up to his next court appearance, over the extradition request, on May 2.

The attitude of the British authorities to the WikiLeaks founder was demonstrated when he was summarily convicted on bail charges in the immediate aftermath of his arrest.

None of the crucial legal questions was considered at the hearing. According to some experts, the charge was effectively resolved years ago as a result of the fact that Assange forfeited bail money in 2012, and spent more time involuntarily detained in the Ecuadorian embassy than the maximum sentence for bail violations.

Instead, the presiding UK district judge, Michael Snow denounced Assange as a narcissist and sent him to prison. In a little reported exchange, Snow told Assange that the WikiLeaks founder could expedite the extradition proceedings if he wished, adding: The advantage is that you get over to the United States, resolve this matter and get on with your life.

According to some reports, Snow may preside over Assanges next court appearance and subsequent extradition hearings.

The openly hostile treatment of Assange by British authorities underscores the real danger that they will move to extradite him as quickly as possible.

The US Justice Department has sought to facilitate this, by limiting the publicly-disclosed charges against Assange to two counts of attempting to gain unauthorised access to a US government computer.

The threadbare charges claim that US army whistleblower Chelsea Manning asked Assange for assistance in cracking a hash or password in 2010. There is no evidence that this ever took place. Even if it did, the only aim would have been to protect Mannings anonymity, a common practice among journalists working with whistleblowers.

The limited character of the charges is aimed at evading bans under existing treaties between the UK and the US on extradition for political offenses. If he is dispatched to the US, however, Assange faces the prospect of further charges, including espionage, which carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty.

US attempts to concoct additional charges against Assange were demonstrated yesterday, when a federal appeals court rejected a request by Manning to be released on bail.

The courageous whistleblower has been held in solitary confinement for over six weeks because she has refused to give perjured testimony against Assange before a Grand Jury. Her continued detention is a transparent attempt to force her to cooperate in the US-led vendetta against Assange.

Joshua Schulte, a former CIA contractor, has similarly been held in solitary confinement for over a year. He is accused of leaking a massive trove of documents to WikiLeaks, exposing the CIAs computer hacking and spying operations, and is undoubtedly being subjected to the same coercive pressure as Manning.

Following yesterdays hearing, Manning defiantly condemned the US government for continuing to abuse the grand jury process. I dont have anything to contribute to this, or any other grand jury, she declared.

Mannings punitive detention is a warning of the treatment that will be meted out to Assange if he is extradited to the US.

The dangers were also spelt out in Reporters Without Borders 2019 World Press Freedom Index, released yesterday. It warned against The violent anti-press rhetoric from the highest level of the US government, physical assaults against US journalists and the threat of prosecution under the Espionage Act hanging over all whistleblowers.

The assault on freedom of the press is not limited to the Trump administration.

Senior Democratic Party representatives have issued the most vociferous condemnations of Assange, branding him as a foreign agent without First Amendment rights, because of WikiLeaks publication of true and newsworthy material exposing the Democratic National Committees attempts to rig the partys 2016 presidential primaries against Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clintons pledges to the Wall Street banks that she would do their bidding.

The corporate press in the US, Britain and Australia, has played a shameful role. Demonstrating they function as the servile stenographers of the intelligence agencies, a host of reporters have declared that Assange is not a journalist. Their arguments are largely based on the fact that he is not employed by a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate and publishes material that exposes the lies and abuses of governments.

Since his arrest, numerous corporate publications have repeated the personal smears against Assange concocted by the corrupt Ecuadorian regime to justify its termination of his political asylum.

Some have featured videos of Assange during his nearly seven-year detention in the embassy. The footage, taken as part of an Ecuadorian spying operation targeting the WikiLeaks founder, may constitute a violation of the right to privacy of a political asylee under international law.

These lies and slanders against Assange are in contrast to the immense support that he enjoys among millions of workers, students and young people.

The mass opposition to Assanges persecution must be transformed into a political movement, to prevent his extradition and secure his freedom.

The WSWS and the Socialist Equality Parties (SEP) around the world are committed to playing a central role in this crucial fight.

Over the past 18 months, the SEP (Australia) has held a series of rallies, demanding that the Australian government immediately fulfil its obligations to Assange, as an Australian citizen, by securing his return to Australia, with a guarantee against extradition to the US.

Another rally, aimed at placing this demand at the centre of the current Australian federal election, will be held in Sydney this Saturday, followed by meetings in a number of cities.

The SEP in the UK has taken part in protests and vigils calling for an all-out mobilisation against the moves to extradite Assange. It will participate in a London public meeting, called by the Julian Assange Defence Committee, on April 26.

The SEP (US) has been at the forefront of the struggle for Mannings immediate release, winning support from auto workers, teachers and other key sections of the working class, along with students and youth.

The WSWS calls on all defenders of democratic rights to join the fight for Assanges freedom. Contact us today.

Authorised by James Cogan for the Socialist Equality Party, Suite 906, 185 Elizabeth Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000.

'];var html = htmlArray.join('');var pos = Math.floor($('#content > p').length / 2);$('#content > p').slice(pos,pos+1).before(html); };

More:
Julian Assange was denied access to lawyers, visitors in ...