Assange appeal lodged in Sweden to lift arrest warrant

Assange's lawyers lodged an appeal on Wednesday to the Swedish Supreme Court to cancel an arrest warrant issued in 2010, after two women accused the WikiLeaks founder of rape and molestation.

Quashing the warrant would largely end the legal stand-off, which saw the Australian seek refuge in Ecuador's London embassy in 2012, to avoid arrest and likely extradition to Sweden. He did so after losing a legal battle in Britain against the extradition.

The 43-year-old refused to go to Sweden to refute the charges, which he denies, as he fears Stockholm would extradite him to the US, where he is wanted over his part in WikiLeaks' publishing of classified military, diplomatic and intelligence documents.

Swedish prosecutors have refused to interview Assange in London, insisting he go to Stockholm to be questioned.

In November, a lower Swedish court rejected Assange's request that the extradition request be lifted, saying he should answer questions over the claims. But it did criticize prosecutors for failing "to examine alternative avenues" in the investigation.

Assange's lawyer hopes that taking the case higher in Sweden will end the impasse.

"We have to end this - the situation is completely stalled, and that's the point we raised in our appeal," said Assange's lawyer, Per Samuelsson.

"We are asking the court to give us access to the phone text messages that the two plaintiffs exchanged, and which (prosecutors) possess," Samuelsson said, saying he was certain the contents of the message would prove his client's innocence.

The complex in central London where Assange is exiled has been constantly guarded by police, at a cost reaching millions of pounds.

Last August, Assange told reporters he planned to leave the embassy "soon," without giving reasons for his announcement or disclosing where he would like to go.

Read the rest here:
Assange appeal lodged in Sweden to lift arrest warrant

UK officers review Assange case

British police are reviewing the operation to guard WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the UK's most senior officer has said.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe told LBC radio that the force is assessing its options due to the pressure the operation at the Ecuadorian embassy in London is putting on resources.

'We won't talk about tactics but we are reviewing what options we have. It is sucking our resources,' he said.

Assange has been at the embassy since June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden where the Australian faces questions over claims of sexual assaults, which he denies.

Last week Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the cost of the operation was around the 10 million mark.

Assange came under intense scrutiny after WikiLeaks began releasing a selection of more than 250,000 classified US diplomatic cables passed to the whistle-blowing website back in 2010.

Assange's supporters last year pondered whether he was to end his self-imposed embassy stay amid concerns over his long-term health.

Read the original post:
UK officers review Assange case

Information published by WikiLeaks – Wikipedia, the free …

Since 2006, the document archive website WikiLeaks, used by whistleblowers, has published anonymous submissions of documents that are generally unavailable to the general public. This article documents the leaks that have attracted media coverage.

WikiLeaks posted its first document in December 2006, a decision to assassinate government officials signed by Sheikh Ahmed Khan Hamza Hassan Dahir Aweys.[1]The New Yorker has reported that

[Julian] Assange and the others were uncertain of its authenticity, but they thought that readers, using Wikipedia-like features of the site, would help analyze it. They published the decision with a lengthy commentary, which asked, Is it a bold manifesto by a flamboyant Islamic militant with links to Bin Laden? Or is it a clever smear by US intelligence, designed to discredit the Union, fracture Somali alliances and manipulate China? ... The documents authenticity was never determined, and news about WikiLeaks quickly superseded the leak itself.[1]

On 31 August 2007, The Guardian (Britain) featured on its front page a story about corruption by the family of the former Kenyan leader Daniel arap Moi. The newspaper stated that the source of the information was WikiLeaks.[2]

In February 2008, the wikileaks.org domain name was taken offline after the Swiss Bank Julius Baer sued WikiLeaks and the wikileaks.org domain registrar, Dynadot, in a court in California, United States, and obtained a permanent injunction ordering the shutdown.[3][4] WikiLeaks had hosted allegations of illegal activities at the bank's Cayman Islands branch.[3] WikiLeaks' U.S. Registrar, Dynadot, complied with the order by removing its DNS entries. However, the website remained accessible via its numeric IP address, and online activists immediately mirrored WikiLeaks at dozens of alternative websites worldwide.[5]

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion protesting the censorship of WikiLeaks. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press assembled a coalition of media and press that filed an amicus curiae brief on WikiLeaks' behalf. The coalition included major U.S. newspaper publishers and press organisations, such as the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press, the Citizen Media Law Project, the E. W. Scripps Company, the Gannett Company, the Hearst Corporation, the Los Angeles Times, the National Newspaper Publishers Association, the Newspaper Association of America and the Society of Professional Journalists. The coalition requested to be heard as a friend of the court to call attention to relevant points of law that it believed the court had overlooked (on the grounds that WikiLeaks had not appeared in court to defend itself, and that no First Amendment issues had yet been raised before the court). Amongst other things, the coalition argued that:[5]

"WikiLeaks provides a forum for dissidents and whistleblowers across the globe to post documents, but the Dynadot injunction imposes a prior restraint that drastically curtails access to Wikileaks from the Internet based on a limited number of postings challenged by Plaintiffs. The Dynadot injunction therefore violates the bedrock principle that an injunction cannot enjoin all communication by a publisher or other speaker."[5]

The same judge, Judge Jeffrey White, who issued the injunction vacated it on 29 February 2008, citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction.[6] WikiLeaks was thus able to bring its site online again. The bank dropped the case on 5 March 2008.[7] The judge also denied the bank's request for an order prohibiting the website's publication.[5]

The Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Lucy Dalglish, commented:

"It's not very often a federal judge does a 180 degree turn in a case and dissolves an order. But we're very pleased the judge recognized the constitutional implications in this prior restraint."[5]

Visit link:
Information published by WikiLeaks - Wikipedia, the free ...

Edwardsnowden BradleyManning Guardian Columnist torture ICC lies Obama NewyorkTimes wikileaks – Video


Edwardsnowden BradleyManning Guardian Columnist torture ICC lies Obama NewyorkTimes wikileaks
Edwardsnowden misuses BradleyManning for his corruption with the Guardian and NewYork times. He has BradleyManning tortured - again - by these newspapaers. Bradley is imprisoned because ...

By: desiree stokkel

See the article here:
Edwardsnowden BradleyManning Guardian Columnist torture ICC lies Obama NewyorkTimes wikileaks - Video

BBC News-Julian Assange: Costs of policing Wikileaks founder reach £10m – Video


BBC News-Julian Assange: Costs of policing Wikileaks founder reach 10m
Julian Assange: Costs of policing Wikileaks founder reach 10m Scotland Yard has spent about 10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian...

By: news collection today

Continue reading here:
BBC News-Julian Assange: Costs of policing Wikileaks founder reach £10m - Video

The Guantanamo Files – WikiLeaks

In its latest release of classified US documents, WikiLeaks is shining the light of truth on a notorious icon of the Bush administrations "War on Terror" the prison at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, which opened on January 11, 2002, and remains open under President Obama, despite his promise to close the much-criticized facility within a year of taking office.

In thousands of pages of documents dating from 2002 to 2008 and never seen before by members of the public or the media, the cases of the majority of the prisoners held at Guantnamo 765 out of 779 in total are described in detail in memoranda from JTF-GTMO, the Joint Task Force at Guantnamo Bay, to US Southern Command in Miami, Florida.

These memoranda, known as Detainee Assessment Briefs (DABs), contain JTF-GTMOs recommendations about whether the prisoners in question should continue to be held, or should be released (transferred to their home governments, or to other governments). They consist of a wealth of important and previously undisclosed information, including health assessments, for example, and, in the cases of the majority of the 172 prisoners who are still held, photos (mostly for the first time ever).

They also include information on the first 201 prisoners released from the prison, between 2002 and 2004, which, unlike information on the rest of the prisoners (summaries of evidence and tribunal transcripts, released as the result of a lawsuit filed by media groups in 2006), has never been made public before. Most of these documents reveal accounts of incompetence familiar to those who have studied Guantnamo closely, with innocent men detained by mistake (or because the US was offering substantial bounties to its allies for al-Qaeda or Taliban suspects), and numerous insignificant Taliban conscripts from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Beyond these previously unknown cases, the documents also reveal stories of the 399 other prisoners released from September 2004 to the present day, and of the seven men who have died at the prison.

The memos are signed by the commander of Guantnamo at the time, and describe whether the prisoners in question are regarded as low, medium or high risk. Although they were obviously not conclusive in and of themselves, as final decisions about the disposition of prisoners were taken at a higher level, they represent not only the opinions of JTF-GTMO, but also the Criminal Investigation Task Force, created by the Department of Defense to conduct interrogations in the "War on Terror," and the BSCTs, the behavioral science teams consisting of psychologists who had a major say in the "exploitation" of prisoners in interrogation.

Crucially, the files also contain detailed explanations of the supposed intelligence used to justify the prisoners detention. For many readers, these will be the most fascinating sections of the documents, as they seem to offer an extraordinary insight into the workings of US intelligence, but although many of the documents appear to promise proof of prisoners association with al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, extreme caution is required.

The documents draw on the testimony of witnesses in most cases, the prisoners fellow prisoners whose words are unreliable, either because they were subjected to torture or other forms of coercion (sometimes not in Guantnamo, but in secret prisons run by the CIA), or because they provided false statements to secure better treatment in Guantnamo.

Regular appearances throughout these documents by witnesses whose words should be regarded as untrustworthy include the following "high-value detainees" or "ghost prisoners". Please note that "ISN" and the numbers in brackets following the prisoners names refer to the short "Internment Serial Numbers" by which the prisoners are or were identified in US custody:

Abu Zubaydah (ISN 10016), the supposed "high-value detainee" seized in Pakistan in March 2002, who spent four and a half years in secret CIA prisons, including facilities in Thailand and Poland. Subjected to waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, on 83 occasions in CIA custody August 2002, Abu Zubaydah was moved to Guantnamo with 13 other "high-value detainees" in September 2006.

More:
The Guantanamo Files - WikiLeaks