Schneier on Security: Cryptography Engineering

March 2010John Wiley & Sons384 PagesPaperbackISBN: 978-0470474242$55.00

Books>

A book by Niels Ferguson, Bruce Schneier, and Tadayoshi Kohno

A fully updated version of the bestselling Practical Cryptography.

Knowing how a camera works does not make you a great photographer. Knowing what cryptographic designs are and how existing cryptographic protocols work does not give you proficiency in using cryptography. You must learn to think like a cryptographer.

That is what this book will teach you. Dive deeply into specific, concrete cryptographic protocols and learn why certain decisions were made. Recognize the challenges and how to overcome them. With this book, which is suitable for both classroom and self-study, you will learn to use cryptography effectively in real-world systems.

Niels Ferguson is a cryptographer for Microsoft who has designed and implemented cryptographic algorithms,protocols, and large-scale security infrastructures. Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist whose advice is sought by business, government, and the media. He is the author of Applied Cryptography, Secrets and Lies, and Schneier on Security. Tadayoshi Kohno is a professor at the University of Washington. He is known for his research and for developing innovative new approaches to cryptography and computer security education.

up to Books

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of IBM Resilient.

Read more:
Schneier on Security: Cryptography Engineering

Welcome to Space 2018 | Space 2018

The International Conference on Security, Privacy and Applied Cryptography Engineering (SPACE) is an annual event devoted to various aspects of security, privacy, applied cryptography, and cryptographic engineering. The conferences started in 2011, and SPACE 2018 is the eighth in this series.

SPACE 2018is being organized by Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IIT-K), in cooperation with International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR) and Cryptology Research Society of India (CRSI)from 15 to 19 December, 2018. The program co-chairs for SPACE 2018 areDr. Anupam Chattopadhyay(NTU Singapore),Dr. Chester Rebeiro(IIT Madras, India), andDr. Yuval Yarom(The University of Adelaide and Data61, Australia).

The conference proceedings will be published by Springer as aSpringer LNCSvolume. The LNCS proceedings of the previous five years are available atSPACE 2017,SPACE 2016,SPACE 2015,SPACE 2014,SPACE 2013. The best contributions to SPACE 2018 will be selected for submission to regular issues of theJournal of Hardware and Systems Security (HASS).

Original papers are invited on all aspects that SPACE 2018 covers. Check theCall for Papers(PDF) for details.

Submission Due : 31 July 2018 (IST = GMT+5:30)Notification : 31 August 2018Final Version Due : 14 September 2018

Tutorials : 15 - 16 December 2018Conference : 17 - 19 December 2018

Deadline For Early Registration : 30 November 2018 (IST = GMT+5:30)

~late registration fee will be applied after the deadline~

See the original post:
Welcome to Space 2018 | Space 2018

Bradley Manning: WikiLeaks Alleged Sources Life in Prison

The last time Bradley Manning saw the world outside of a jail, most Americans had never heard of WikiLeaks. On Friday, Manning, the man whose alleged unauthorized release of hundreds of thousands of classified documents put the website and its controversial leader, Julian Assange, on the map, turns 23 behind bars. Since his arrest in May, Manning has spent most of his 200-plus days in solitary confinement. Other than receiving a card and some books from his family, his birthday will be no different. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, his attorney, David Coombs, revealed key details about Mannings imprisonment and kind gestures from his family that provided a bit of comfort in the inmate's otherwise extremely harsh incarceration.

Theyre thinking about him on his birthday, that they love and support him, Coombs said of Manning's family and the card his mother, father, sister and aunt passed along via the lawyer on Wednesday. They wish they could be with him on his day, but they are not allowed because visitation is only on Saturday and Sunday, and a family member would be going down to see him on Saturday. Coombs passed a message to Manning from his aunt on behalf of the family; Manning, the lawyer says, asked Coombs to tell his aunt he loved her and wishes he could be with her as well.

Manning asked for a list of books, which his family bought for him and will be delivered over the next few weeks to coincide with his birthday and Christmas. On the list?

Decision Points, by George W. Bush Critique of Practical Reason, by Immanuel Kant Critique of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant Propaganda, by Edward Bernays The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins A Peoples History of the United States, by Howard Zinn The Art of War, by Sun Tzu The Good Soldiers, by David Finkel On War by Gen. Carl von Clausewitz

Manning is being held at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia. He spends 23 hours a day alone in a standard-sized cell, with a sink, a toilet, and a bed. He isnt allowed sheets or a pillow, though First Lieutenant Brian Villiard, an officer at Quantico, said he is allowed bedding of non-shreddable material. Ive held it, Ive felt it, its soft, Id sleep under it, he told The Daily Beast.

He isnt allowed to exercise (Quantico officials dispute this), but he has started stretching and practicing yoga.

For an hour every day, a television is wheeled in front of his cell and hes allowed to watch TV, including news, though usually local news, Coombs told The Daily Beast. He is allowed to read the news as well. Courtesy of Coombs, Manning now has a subscription to his favorite magazine, Scientific American. The November Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter issue was his first.

The conditions under which Bradley Manning is being held would traumatize anyone (see Salons Glenn Greenwald for a rundown of the legal and psychological issues associated with extended solitary confinement). He lives alone in a small cell, denied human contact. He is forced to wear shackles when outside of his cell, and when he meets with the few people allowed to visit him, they sit with a glass partition between them. The only person other than prison officials and a psychologist who has spoken to Manning face to face is his attorney, who says the extended isolationnow more than seven months of solitary confinementis weighing on his clients psyche.

When he was first arrested, Manning was put on suicide watch, but his status was quickly changed to Prevention of Injury watch (POI), and under this lesser pretense he has been forced into his life of mind-numbing tedium. His treatment is harsh, punitive and taking its toll, says Coombs.

There is no evidence hes a threat to himself, and shouldnt be held in such severe conditions under the artifice of his own protection.

The command is basing this treatment of him solely on the nature of the pending charges, and on an unrelated incident where a service member in the facility took his own life, Coombs said, referencing the February suicide of a marine captain in the Quantico brig. Coombs says he believes Quantico officials are keeping Manning under close watch with strict limitations on his activity out of an overabundance of caution. Both Coombs and Mannings psychologist, Coombs says, are sure Manning is mentally healthy, that there is no evidence hes a threat to himself, and shouldnt be held in such severe conditions under the artifice of his own protection.

Manning faces a military court-martial on charges of providing WikiLeaks with classified information in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

His future remains uncertain. Rep John Conyers (D-MI), in Thursday's congressional hearing on WikiLeaks, called for calm and a measured response to the new challenges the whistleblower's site presents to the future of governance. "When everyone in this town is joined together calling for someone's head, it's a pretty sure sign that we need to slow down and take a look."

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) followed with a call for punishment. I have no sympathy for the alleged thief in this situation, Poe said, insisting the source of the leak, whoever it is, be held responsible. Hes no better than a Texas pawn shop dealer that deals in stolen merchandise and sells it to the highest bidder.

Mannings fate will be determined over the following months. What is clear today is that hes being held in extraordinarily harsh conditionsnotably harsher than Bryan Minkyu Martin, the naval intelligence specialist who allegedly tried to sell military secrets to an undercover FBI agent, and is currently being held awaiting trial, though not in solitary confinement. Manning, who has been convicted of nothing, has spent the better part of a year incommunicado, living the life of a man convicted of a heinous crime. Coombs challenges the legality of what he says is unlawful pretrial punishment. He is working to lift the POI restrictions placed on his client.

Denver Nicks is an editorial assistant at The Daily Beast.

See more here:
Bradley Manning: WikiLeaks Alleged Sources Life in Prison

Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman named Chelsea

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier sentenced to 35 years in military prison for the biggest breach of classified documents in the nations history, said on Thursday he is female and wants to live as a woman named Chelsea.

Manning, 25, launched an unprecedented bid to get female hormone treatment in a military prison a day after he was sentenced for leaking documents to the WikiLeaks website.

As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning, I am a female, Manning said in the statement read by anchorwoman Savannah Guthrie on NBC News Today show.

During the sentencing phase of Mannings court-martial for leaking more than 700,000 secret documents, defense attorneys pointed out that the soldier suffered from gender identity disorder. A psychologist testified Manning had a difficult time adjusting to the hypermasculine environment of a combat zone.

Manning said in the statement that he wished to begin receiving hormone therapy while serving his sentence in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

A spokeswoman said the Army did not provide hormone therapy or gender-reassignment surgery, but that military inmates have access to mental health professionals, including a psychiatrist, psychologist, social workers and behavioral science specialists.

Given the way that I feel and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible, Manning said in the statement. I also request that starting today you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun.

Mannings lawyer David Coombs said on the TV program he expected his client to get a pardon from U.S. President Barack Obama. Manning, who was convicted last month at Fort Meade, Maryland, on 20 charges, including espionage and theft, could be eligible for parole in seven years.

During the trial, Coombs had argued that Manning had been increasingly isolated and under intense stress when he leaked the files, and that his superiors had ignored warning signs.

Coombs said his client was not seeking gender-reassignment surgery, but he would press Fort Leavenworth to provide hormone therapy for Manning.

Im hoping that Fort Leavenworth will do the right thing and provide that. If Fort Leavenworth does not, then Im going to do everything in my power to make sure that they are forced to do so, Coombs said.

Asked if Manning wanted to be sent to a womens prison, Coombs said no.

I think the ultimate goal is to be comfortable in her skin and to be the person that shes never had an opportunity to be, he said.

Coombs said he was not worried about Mannings safety in a military prison since inmates there were first-time offenders who wanted to complete their sentences and get out.

Experts generally view military prisons as safer than civilian prisons since the inmates are accustomed to hierarchy and discipline.

Manning had not wanted his sexual identity issues to become public, but they did after his arrest in 2010, Coombs said.

Now that it is (public), unfortunately you have to deal with it in a public manner, he said.

A psychiatrist, Navy Reserve Captain David Moulton, testified during Mannings trial that the soldier suffered from gender dysphoria, or wanting to be the opposite sex, as well as narcissism and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Geoffrey Corn, a military law expert at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, called Mannings bid for hormone treatment the first of its kind for the military. Openly gay members were barred from serving until the Pentagons dont ask, dont tell policy was repealed in 2011.

We dont have any precedent for the application of military medical care for elective gender reassignment therapy, he said.

Corn was skeptical that Manning would get approval for hormone therapy since federal courts have traditionally given the military deference for its life and activities.

I dont see it happening, he said.

Chase Stangio, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Unions Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project, said in a statement that the Armys saying it did not provide hormone therapy raised serious constitutional issues.

Courts have consistently found that denying medical care for gender dysphoria to prisoners based on blanket exclusions violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which bars cruel and unusual punishment, Stangio said.

Reporting by Susan Heavey and Ian Simpson; Editing by Scott Malone, Jeffrey Benkoe and Vicki Allen

Read more:
Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman named Chelsea

Edward Snowdens Lawyer Wolfgang Kaleck on the Global Fight …

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman, as we continue with Part 2 of our interview with Wolfgang Kaleck, a human rights attorney who for decades has been at the forefront of the legal fight to hold powerful actors and governments around the world accountable for human rights abuses. He documents his remarkable career in the new book Law Versus Power: Our Global Fight for Human Rights. The books foreword was written by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, whom Kaleck represents in Europe. Edward Snowden writes, quote, I came to appreciate that Wolfgang combines a lawyers attention to detail, a radicals view of power, and an activists vision for a better world. [W]hen the history of our era is written not by the torturers and their apologists, but by those who never gave up on the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human RightsWolfgang Kaleck will be one of the primary authors, Snowden writes.

Wolfgang Kaleck is the general secretary of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rightshis new book isLaw Versus Power: Our Global Fight for Human Rightsjoining us now in our New York studio, where hes just come from Berlin.

Thank you very much for continuing with us in Part 2 of this discussion. So lets start off with the man who introduces you in your book, Edward Snowden, your client. You represent him in Europe. Talk about whats happening with Ed Snowden right now, the world-renowned whistleblower who is now in political asylum in Russia, though, of course, would like to be back in the United States. And for our viewers, if you would just refresh our memory about what Snowden did and his significance?

WOLFGANG KALECK: There are a lot of stories that have to be told about Edward Snowden. Obviously, he was the one who confirmed all the warnings of many, many experts in the field about mass surveillance. So, you know, since his revelations, we lost somehow our innocence, not only about the mass surveillance carried out by the secret services all over the world, not only by the NSAwe have to remind thatbut also the collection and processing of data by the powerful corporations, such as Facebook and all the others. And so, thats the one thing. And I think it will beat some point, it will be remembered as a really historical watershed, summer 2013, before and after.

So, the second thing is, in a time, you know, when many people are frustrated about whats going on in the worldyou know, the rise of the far right, the economic crisis everywherehe sets an example for courage and, you know, that you can achieve something when you risk something, whereas many of us are sitting there in our offices, in cafes and restaurants, and debating and not really risking something. What did he risk? Basically, the first moment when he revealed not only the facts, but also identified himself, he risked basically his life and his existence. And he had to flee the U.S., went to Hong Kong, and then the only country which was willing to host him was Russia. By the time he looked for other places to go and to stayin Europe, in Latin Americabut nobody was really willing to give him a safe stay.

And this is how we then come in. Hes represented in the U.S. by the ACLU. Ben Wizner is the leading lawyer. But in Europe, there was a lot of interest in his revelations, so he participated in an inquiry commission at the European Parliament and at the Council of Europe. And we thought that the Europeans, who consider themselves the champions of human rights and democracy, at some point really, really acknowledge what he did and also declare his prosecution in the U.S. as against all standards of criminal law and human rights, because what hes facing in the U.S. is a life-long sentence. He can get a 30-year prison term for each file he copied and made public. And he could be forced to serve the sentence in a maximum-security prison in total isolation, under this, you know, special statute, special administration measure, SAM. And that is obviously against any standard.

And so, its a very big disappointment that the European governments acted once again in complete bigotry. Its, you know, the whistleblower of my enemy is my friend, but my own whistleblower is my enemy. And that is, you know, criminalizing whistleblowers in the way they do it. Its, from many points of view, very, very stupid. And thats something we try towe tried and are still trying to challenge, because this is a man who deserves all our solidarity.

AMY GOODMAN: And just specifically, to refresh everyones memory, Edward Snowden is the man who exposed the secrets of the National Security Agency, the massive intelligence agency that is many times larger than the CIA, and its ability to spy on Americans, on foreign governments, people around the world. This was in 2013, revealing numerous global surveillance programs, not only run by the NSA but the Five Eyes intelligence alliance with the cooperation of telecommunications companies and European governments. So, he was taking on the world, in a sense. He goes to Hong Kong. He reveals this information to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, their reporting leading to Pulitzer Prizes. And as he then tries to take refuge, perhaps in a Latin American country, he loses his passport. Its revoked, from the United States. And so, when he was traveling, in transit, he is not able to leave Russia, in transit, and he is ultimately granted political asylum there, where he has remained forwhat? Close to six years right now.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Close to six years. In summer, its going to be six years, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, there he is. Are there secret negotiations going on with the U.S. government for him to come home, or is there just no chance at this point?

WOLFGANG KALECK: There is no chance at this point. But hes a young man, and were hoping for some more, you know, human rights and democracy-orientated U.S. governments in the future. So he has many, many more chances, and at some pointI mean, public opinion is pretty much in favor of him. I mean, in my country, in Germany, hes a hero. Hes considered as a hero. And in many European countries, as well. Many young people admire him. And that is something that at some point the politicians willwe have to convince them, in some point, to say, OK, close the chapter. And

AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about how he testifies in other countries, though he doesnt leave his political asylum in Russia at this moment. Who has called on him to testify? For example, in Germany and in other countries.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Yeah. I mean, first of all, we appreciated that very much European institutions, such as the assemblythe Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, took a stand on mass surveillance and protection of whistleblowers. And they asked him foras as an expert. So, he is not just, I mean

AMY GOODMAN: As an expert on?

WOLFGANG KALECK: On whistleblowing and mass surveillance. So, hes not just regarded as, lets say, a kind of technical nerd engineer guy who leaks some information, and then, you know, whatever. No, hes someone who can explain what what goes on. And that is also very important to acknowledge, that he has not just leaked some data, but he pointed to a problem, and that affectsthis problem affects the whole world. Because, let us make this very clear, the NSA and the British secret service, GCHQ, they might have the highest standard of technique of surveillance, but the others wouldyou know, everybody would do it, including the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Indian. You know, they would do it. And so, this is not about the NSA. And, you know, that is also something we have to remind the people in Europe, who easily point to the U.S. and say, you know, Thats only the U.S. No, no, no, its everybody. And so, its about democracy, now and in the future.

AMY GOODMAN: Youve come to the United States, and you see also, from your perch in Berlin, what is happening with President Trump. But can you talk about the far-right shift thats happening in Europe? And start with your own country. Start with Germany.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Yeah, its a very tragic development, which has to do with several factorsamongst others, the economic crisis in Europe. I mean, everybody is now realizing what the impact of the economic globalization isyou know, outsourcing work and to places where work iswhere workforce is very cheap, and that leads to unemployment in all our countries, and that leads also to a certain insecurity, economic and social insecurity, in all our countries. And then we have, you know, these demagogues all over Europe who try to instrumentalize that.

And so, I would blame governments like the German government under Chancellor Merkel, who enjoys a very good reputation. I would blame them for not having developed a social visionsocial and democratic vision for Europe in the last decade. It was a lost decade. And then, of course, when it became obvious that the migration management system of Europe failed, she allowed the people to enter Germany, but Germany was also the most responsible state for the so-called Dublin system, the migration management system, which gave the responsibility of protecting European borders to the European border states. And not only that, but if they were not able to permitto prohibit people from coming in, when the people entered the territory, these were the states where the asylum claims had to be dealt with. And so, the central Western European powersFrance, the U.K., Germanywould lean back and would say, OK, Spain, Italy, Greece, you do the dirty job for us. And that system failed, ultimately, in summer 2015. Many refugeespolitical refugees from Syria, above allcame to Germany. And that was then instrumentalized by the right-wingers all over Europe.

And yeah, that is something were still struggling on. Some of the right-wingers are, unfortunately, in power, in Poland and Hungary. And some of them, yeah, are struggling for power, like in Germany, like in France, where the situation can change. But one has also to say that this is against the frustration of many people. There were powerful demonstrations, for example, in Germany. There is a lot of resistance all over Europe, a lot of solidarity with the migrants. So, its an openits a politically open situation. It looks bad when you look at the institutions and at the governments, but it looks a little bit more hopeful when you see, you know, all the local and regional initiatives, yeah, of resistance and of solidarity.

AMY GOODMAN: Lets talk about some of the cases that you have taken on. And if you can also talk about why you feel this is important? Sometimes the cases you look at are decades old, and yet you are right there. Lets talk about Argentina for a moment. You took on both government crimes during the Dirty War, and you took on corporate crimes, like companies like Mercedes-Benz.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Yeah. First of all, there are many people around the world who are saying we dont have to look back, we have to look forward. It was President Obama. But now its President AMLO in Mexico, again, who calls for national reconciliation. And I think these people neglect the importance ofyou know, that a society which has suffered a dictatorial past has to challenge that, because torture is not only an individual problem or individualits not a fact which occurred in the past, but it has a serious impact on the torture survivor, his family, his social environment, but also the whole society. You know, you cannot build up a democracy and a human rights-orientated society on the corpses of the tortured and the assassinated.

So, that is, I think, a very important lesson we can learn fromabove all, from Chile and from Argentina. And this is why the Argentinean and the Chilean human rights movement are insisting that this should be on the agenda, on the agenda of their national courts, and if they are not willing and able to deal with that, on international courts. And thats where we come in. And this is alsoyou know, this is also a moment to remind that 20 yearsa little bit more than 20 years ago, in October 1998, General Pinochet was finally arrested. And that is

AMY GOODMAN: General Pinochet, who was thewho took power in Chile in 1973.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Eleventh of September, 1973, the other

AMY GOODMAN: Another September.

WOLFGANG KALECK: The other 11th of September, yeah. And yeah, and tortured and killed thousands of oppositionals, and was impune until he left Chile for a private trip to the U.K. and was then there arrested in October 1998.

And so, if youyou have to recall that also because, all of us, we are frustrated about the current situation, but there are also achievements of the human rights movement. And what happened after the Pinochet arrest was really, really impressive, because many lawyers, human rights activists all over the world said, Lets repeat that Pinochet experience in other countries. And amongst them, Peter Weiss and Michael Ratner from the Center for Constitutional Rights are calling on the the investigation and prosecution of those who are responsible for the U.S. torture system. So, the claim was from Pinochet to Rumsfeld. And thats also then important to remember that a couple of years ago it was for many, even human rights activists and lawyers, impossible to think of challenging such powerful actors as Rumsfeld. Many people were saying, Oh, this doesnt lead anywhere. You know, this will have no result. And we proved that it was an important contribution to the struggle against torture.

And, of course, it also led to the broader network, which we have now, which not only focuses on state actors, those who are responsible for crimes against humanity and torture, but also targets of corporations who are involved in human rights violations. And so, this is not only a story about brave human rights lawyers, individuals in Madrid, in London, in Berlin or in New York. This is a story of a network of young lawyers completely dedicated to human rights, in India, in the Philippines, in Congo, in Colombia. Everywhere you travel, you will find now these kind of lawyers. And that is also an important dimension of our work, and that is also an important message. You know, like we are debating, Should we, or should we not? No, we have to. We have to, because all these people I just mentioned deserve our solidarity.

AMY GOODMAN: So, especially for young people who are not aware of what happened in Argentina, talk about the mothers of the disappeared, the groups that fought to make clear what was happening in Argentina, the tens of thousands of people who were killed or disappeared. Talk about the government accountability, the corporate accountability, like Mercedes-Benz, and what you and other human rights lawyers did about this.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Yeah. After March 1976, the military took the power in Argentina and immediately started to arrest waves and waves of especially young people who were in the opposition, students, journalists, but, above all, also workers, trade unionists. The main group within the 30,000 disappeared in the seven years of dictatorship in Argentina were trade unionists. So, it was not onlyit was not only a crime, but it was also a transformation of the Argentinian society. It was a transformation to a neoliberal society. And that is verythat is very important to be remembered.

And that dictatorship in Argentinasame goes for the Chile coupNaomi Klein, in her book, Shock Effect [Shock Doctrine], reminds us that it was about to shock and awe the workers movement in order to have a free way to a neoliberal society. And many corporations within Chile, Argentina, participated, but also many outside, and amongst them, the big automobile corporations such as Mercedes-Benz from Germany, but also Ford from the U.S. And, I mean, fortunately enough

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what Mercedes-Benz did.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Mercedes-Benz had a production in the province of Buenos Aires, and there was an independent trade union movement on the level of the factory. They asked for what trade unions ask foryou know, better wages and more security, work security. And more than 15 of them had been abducted, several of them tortured to death, disappeared. But one of them survived. That was my client, Hctor Ratto, who could testify about the role of one manager of Mercedes-Benz, and therefore we tried to hold Mercedes accountable in Germany, in the U.S.

AMY GOODMAN: Because its a German company.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Its a German company. The guy had double citizenshipArgentinian-Germanso we could go to Germany. The lawyers went also to the U.S. to file a case again under the Alien Tort Claims Act. And finally, the case is nowinvestigation is open in Argentina. And yeah, a good example, you know, for endurance, for sustainability of the work, is that, you know, more than 30 years after all this happened, in last month, a number of old managers of Ford, of the Ford company, had been sentenced in an Argentinian court, you know? So

AMY GOODMAN: Well, lets talk about that. In Argentina, in December, two former motor Ford Motor Company executives were found guilty of aiding in the kidnapping and torture of 24 workers during Argentinas military dictatorship. Pedro Mller, Hctor Francisco Sibilla were sentenced to 10 and 12 years in prison. They were found guilty of providing the personal information of workers to military forces, as well as allowing interrogations inside the Ford factorythe first time executives of a multinational corporation were found guilty of human rights abuses in Argentina.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Yeah. Thats an incredible, important precedent, yeah, not only for Argentina, but all over the world, because we have this situation in many countries that, you know, these companies come there and profit from authoritarian systems to make more, toyeah, its easier to make more profit without strong trade unions. They profit there. And then, when people try to hold them accountable, they would say, Oh, were just neutral businessmen. That is, by the way, the same excuse the Nazithe industrialists in the Nazi time used when they were put on trial in the Nuremberg follow-up trials. And it was declared null and invalid by the time by the judges in the Nuremberg trials. So, its important that we have new precedents right now.

And its also important because many people in the human rights movement try to frame their work as neutral and apolitical. And whereas we think its very important to recall the causes of these human rights violations. It was not that the generals in Chile or Argentina are, you know, cruel human beings. No, they had a political and economic project, and they were supported by the Western states and by the Western companies. And therefore these cases are also very important to warn all of us that same developments are going on right now. You know, companies are making their business all over the world, no matter what government is in power and no matter if human rights and labor rights of their workers and trade unionists are respected or not. And that is ofso, Argentina is a very important signal, as well as in the case of the Operation Condor trial. I mean

AMY GOODMAN: And explain Operation Condor.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Operation Condor was like the CIA extraordinary rendition program, a cooperationan international cooperation between secret services and special police forces in the late 60s and early 70s in Latin America, in southern Latin America. So, here we had the secret service people from all these dictatorships sitting together with the U.S.there are photos of it, of this, of these meetingsand discussing how to chase the oppositionals across the borders.

And so, what happened was, you know, in Uruguay, the dictatorship began already in '74, so some of the Uruguayan oppositionals flew to Argentina. And when the dictators were in power there, they arrested them and tortured them, or in Argentina or brought them back when they were tortured in Uruguay. So, it's kind of the blueprint of the extraordinary renditionyou know, alliance of secret services all over the world. Where here we had political oppositionals, there we had terrorism suspects.

And the interesting thing is that in Argentina, in one very important trial, the leading generals were accountable for their actions within the framework of the Operation Condor. So, the Operation Condor was declared as an illegal action. And that is also very important, because, I mean, people tend to forget what happens under theyou know, under the label national security, which was, by the way, also a very familiar term in the 70s in Latin America to cover up the crimes of the military dictators.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about using legal means, that your group does, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, to challenge, for example, unlawful killings by armed drones, for example, the role of air bases in Europe, like Ramstein in Germany, as well as in Italy? What is the role of the U.S. drone program?

WOLFGANG KALECK: The U.S. carries out targeted killings by drones. That is well known, and that is challenged in courts here in the U.S. and also elsewhere. But its also important to know that part of the system of these targeted killings are air bases in Europeamongst them, air bases in Sicily and in Ramstein in Germany. And so, the U.S. says that this is not a breach against international law, but that is not the majority opinion. The majority opinion, if we are not in war, you cannot just kill people, you know, without trial, without any judicial control. And so, it is against the majority legal opinion. For example, Germany and Italy have another stand.

And so, what we askclaim from the German and from the Italian government is that they guarantee that from German and Italian territory no unlawful targeted killings are carried out. And so, the German answer was, Yeah, we told the U.S. that they should respect international law, and they answered they do. Very superficial way to deal with this problem, so we went to court, and there is a pending court procedure, as well in Germany as well as in Italy. But obviously our main target should be the U.S. But in the U.S. it seems impossible to challenge these actions, so we have to circumvent that and go to European courts.

AMY GOODMAN: You write about the struggle for collective memory. Explain what you mean, Wolfgang.

WOLFGANG KALECK: OK, all this work, you know, taking up cases from the '70s, from the 80s, in Latin America, now in Syria, is, of course, in what we are doing, not only in my organization in Berlin, but many other organizations, is a legal work. It's primarily legal work. But its also a contribution to collective memory. And that is something we think is extremely important, that, you know, any society which has such a pastI mean, we in Germany had a terrible pasthas to challenge that somehow and have to build up something like a collective memory. And here, our lawsuits, the documentation, you know, which is the basis for all lawsuits, then the trials, the proceeding, the testimonies collected, that is a very important material and can serve as an important basis for the collective memory. But, of course, that only works if we lawyers communicate with artists, with journalists, with writers, with the rest of the society. And this is why its nice to have European courts taking up cases like the Pinochet case or like our Syria cases right now. But in the end of the day, it would be important that these trials are taking place in those societies affected by the crimes.

AMY GOODMAN: You keep mentioning Syria. Talk about your work documenting human rights abuses of the Assad regime

WOLFGANG KALECK: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: as well as, last June, German authorities issuing an arrest warrant for the head of the Syrian Air Force, that was really very much based on your work.

WOLFGANG KALECK: Yeah. We have more than a half of a million Syrian refugees coming to Germany, amongst them many political activists of the Arab Syrian Spring from 2011 on, and many of them are, yeah, survivors of torture. And so, we have a huge potential of witnesses and experts amongst the Syrian community. We have some of the most prominent Syrian lawyers coming to GermanyAnwar al-Bunni, Mazen Darwishwho, together with us, elaborated a strategy how to challenge the systematic torture, which, unfortunately, is the DNA of the Assad regime. And when I say Assad regime, father Assad and son Assad. So, some of the prisons, like the infamous Sednaya Prison, exist for decades right now.

And so, what wehappy enough, the German federal prosecutors opened investigation into this already in 2012. And then we contributed to these investigations by bringing a lot of witnesses to the prosecutor and also by delivering the original set of data of the military photographer Caesar, who photographed the corpses of many people who had been tortured to death in Syrian prisons, and not only the corpses but also some information where they were killed. So, we have the units, the military units, the prison units, where they were killed. And that is now being analyzed by German forensic experts.

And, of course, some of the procedures are then directed against those who happen to be in Germany or in Europe. So there are also some torturers who have come with the bigger group of the refugees. But for us, from Berlin, the most important thing is that those who bear the most responsibility are to be held accountable. And that is the heads of the secret services. And so, we are extremely happy that the federal prosecutors office and the Supreme Court released this arrest warrant against Jamil Hassan, which is, by the way, then also something

AMY GOODMAN: And Jamil Hassan is the head of the Syrian Air Force intelligence.

WOLFGANG KALECK: The head of the Air Force secret service, yeah, and one of the most infamous, you know, torture experts in Syria. And the interesting thing is also this is then something we will point out as unprecedented. I mean, why only holding Syrian torture, you know, secret service heads accountable, and why not the heads of other secret services, like George Tenet from the U.S., like the Sri Lankans, like the Congolese, like the Colombians? So, this is also a very important symbol in the fight against torture all over the world. As the International Criminal Court is not functioning so well, as we have problems all over the world, we can deliver the messages that there are some courts in Europe willing and able to deal with this fact.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, you write about success without victory, from Videla to Rumsfeld. As we wrap up, explain what you mean.

WOLFGANG KALECK: That many of us, you know, think in black and white. You know, its or victory or failure, and whereas the life plays in the gray zone. And the political and the legal struggle we are involved in also plays in this gray zone. So, sometimes we wont have success immediately, but we have to acknowledge, when we comewhen we move some steps forward. And that is what happened in the struggle for accountability in cases of torture and crimes against humanity. The last 20 years, so much happened, also in a positive way, that we have to remind that. Obviously, we want more. We dont want torture in the world. So, its incredible whats happening there, but still there are networks, there are activists all over the world, who resist that development and who build up something which is, yeah, I would say, given to the small resources all of us have, thats quite important.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you so much for being with us. Wolfgang Kaleck is the general secretary of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. He is Edward Snowdens European lawyer. He has a new book out. Usually hes in Berlin, Germany, but now in the United States talking about Law Versus Power: Our Global Fight for Human Rights.

To see Part 1 of our discussion, go to democracynow.org. Im Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us.

Read this article:
Edward Snowdens Lawyer Wolfgang Kaleck on the Global Fight ...

Julian – Defend WikiLeaks

Julian Assange is an Australian journalist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006. Julian was the editor of WikiLeaks until September 2018: six months of his effective incommunicado detention in the Ecuadorian embassy in London then prompted Julian to appoint Kristin Hrafnsson as WikiLeaks editor-in-chief. Julian remains WikiLeaks publisher.

Wikileaks publications have had enormous impact. They have changed many peoples views of governments, enabling them to see their secrets. They have changed journalism as a practice, as debates have raged over the ethics of secrecy, transparency and reporting on stolen documents. WikiLeaks has gained the admiration of people and organisations all over the world, as evidenced in the numerous awards it has won.

At the same time, Julian and WikiLeaks have incurred the wrath of several governments exposed in the releases, notably the United States. US public officials have threatened to prosecute Julian and WikiLeaks: these threats are outlined here. Probably no organisation in the world undertaking legitimate activity is the subject of such intense scrutiny, vilification and threats by the US government as WikiLeaks.

Julian has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since June 2012, after seeking and gaining political asylum by the Ecuadorian government. Julian sought protection from US political persecution and attempts to imprison him over his work as the publisher of WikiLeaks. He was granted political asylum after the UK and Swedish governments refused to give an assurance that they would not extradite him to the US over WikiLeaks publications.

The UK government refuses to confirm or deny whether it has received a US extradition warrant. Human Rights Watch has called on the UK to issue an assurance that it will not extradite Julian to the US as a way toresolve the situation.

Julians life in embassy is difficult and would probably be unbearable for most people. He is in a small space and has had no access to sunlight for over six years.

This has had serious effects on his physical and mental health. But Julian has even been prevented by the British authorities from being able to get necessary medical treatment including an MRI for shoulder pain and dental care: those authorities have stated that Julian will be arrested as soon as he leaves the embassy. Medical assessments concerning the deterioration of Julians health can be read here and here.

In March 2018, the new government in Ecuador unilaterally imposed new conditions on Julian that prevent him from having visitors and receiving telephone calls and other electronic communications, permitting him only to meet with his lawyers.

But then in October, Ecuador unilaterally imposed further restrictions in a new Protocol. This includes explicit threats to revoke Julians asylum if he, or any visitors, breach or are perceived to breach, any of the 28 rules in the protocol. The protocol forbids Julian from undertaking journalism and expressing his opinions, under threat of losing his asylum. The rules also state that the embassy can seize Julians property or his visitors property and hand these to the UK police, and report visitors to the UK authorities. The protocol also requires visitors to provide the IMEI codes and serial numbers of electronic devices used inside the embassy, and states that this private information may be shared with undisclosed agencies.

The Ecuadorian government has falsely stated that Julians protection from political persecution is contingent on his censorship. There is no legal basis for this claim, and in fact, the interference with his basic rights that has been imposed violates both the Ecuadorian Constitution and binding international legal instruments.

There have been reportsthat the UK and Ecuador are seeking to reach a high level agreement to breach Julians asylum by handing him over to the UK police to be arrested. The US government is increasing its military cooperation with Ecuador and providing other inducements, apparently to press Ecuador to hand over Julian. Any such action by Ecuador would be in defiance a strong, supportiveruling(see para 178 and following) by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, setting out Ecuadors obligations in relation to Julian.

The United Nations considers Julian to be held in a situation of arbitrary detention. In December 2015, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), having reviewed Julians case, determined that he has been held in a state of arbitrary detention since his voluntary arrest in London in December 2010.

In its statement announcing its decision, the UN group said,

The Working Group considered that Mr. Assange has been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth prison which was followed by house arrest and his confinement at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the Working Group also found that the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange.

The WGAD called for Julians immediate release and stated that he was entitled to compensation. In response to the announcement, Julians legal team asked Sweden to withdraw its arrest warrant (see below).

However, the UK and Swedish governments rejected the ruling and have refused to acknowledge the WGADs requests. Incredibly, the UK government tried to dismiss the WGAD ruling which is the worlds leading body addressing matters concerning arbitrary detention as ridiculous. The government requested a review but in November 2016, the WGAD rejected this request stating that it did not meet the threshold of a review. The UK government reiterated that it completely rejects the ruling of the WGAD.

In December 2010, the Swedish authorities issued an arrest warrant for Julian seeking his extradition (see Swedish allegations below). Julian then voluntarily visited a police station in London, following which he was arrested and placed in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison for 10 days. The day after Julian was imprisoned, the media reported that Sweden and the US had entered into talks over extraditing Assange to the United States in connection with the WikiLeaks disclosures.

After 10 days in prison, the UK courts found that Julian Assange could be released on bail. He was moved to house arrest and required to meet the police every day, which he did for 551 days in a row.

In May 2012, Julian lost an appeal at the UK Supreme Court over his extradition to Sweden. Fearing that the Swedish authorities would make good on reports of his being extradited to the US, in the context of the ongoing US investigation into him (see threats to WL), on 19 June 2012, Julian Assange entered the Ecuadorian Embassy in order to seek asylum.

On 16 August 2012, Ecuador granted political asylum to Julian. It cited a threat to his life, personal safety and freedom as the basis for granting his request. The Ecuadorian government added:

There is a certainty of the Ecuadorian authorities that an extradition to a third country outside the European Union is feasible without the proper guarantees for his safety and personal integrity. The judicial evidence shows clearly that, given an extradition to the United States, Mr. Assange would not have a fair trial, he could be judged by a special or military court, and it is not unlikely that he would receive cruel and demeaning treatment and he would be condemned to a life sentence or the death penalty, which would not respect his human rights If Mr. Assange is reduced to preventive prison in Sweden (as it is usual in that country), it would initiate a chain of events that will prevent the adoption of preventive measures to avoid his extradition to a third country.

Asylum was granted under the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1954 Caracas Convention owing to Julians well-founded fear of political persecution if extradited to the US in circumstances where the UK and Sweden refused to provide (or even seek) diplomatic assurances against his extradition to the US. Ecuador requested this assurance from the UK and Sweden before deciding to grant Julian protection: its protection was granted when the UK government did not do so.

A key myth about why Julian was forced into the Ecuadorian embassy

Despite numerous false media reports, Julians concern was never to avoid extradition to Sweden, but to avoid extradition to the United States where he would be imprisoned, and, as Ecuador noted in granting asylum, could even face the death penalty. Julian would have accepted extradition to Sweden had the UK provided an assurance against onward extradition to the US.

Despite false media reporting, Julian has also always been willing to present himself to the British police over the bail issue from 2012, again provided that the UK authorities give assurances that he would not be extradited to the US.

Neither the UK nor Swedish governments have ever provided such assurances against extradition.

The UK government has not recognised that it has an obligation to recognise that Julians refugee status prevents the UK extraditing him to the persecuting state, in this case, the United States.

The case could have been resolved many years ago.

The Swedish case is now closed. The Swedish allegations derived from August 2010, when Julian was in Sweden three weeks after the publication of the Afghan Warlogs, following which the US described WikiLeaks as a very real and potential threat.

Two women went to the Swedish police after having separate sexual encounters with Julian in order to request he undergo an STD test. The police filed these reports as one case of rape and another of molestation. However, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finn, reviewed and then dropped the preliminary investigation into the rape case, stating that no crime at all had been committed and that the evidence did not disclose any evidence of rape; the Chief Prosecutor then cancelled the arrest warrant for Julian, who remained in Sweden in order to cooperate in the investigation. However, seven days later, another prosecutor, Marianne Ny, reopened the preliminary investigation.

Text messages between the two women, which were later revealed, do not complain of rape. Rather, they show that the women did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him and that they only wanted him to take a test. One wrote that it was the police who made up the charges and told a friend that she felt that she had been railroaded by police and others around her.

Julian provided several affidavits professing innocence of any allegations and always made himself available for questioning by the Swedish authorities. Despite numerous false media reports asserting that Julian faced charges by the Swedish police, no charges were ever brought.

Emails released under a tribunal challenge following a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the Swedish authorities wanted to drop the arrest warrant for Julian in 2013 it was the British government that insisted it continue. UK prosecutors admitted todeleting key emails and engaged in elaborate attempts to keep correspondence from the public record.

After initially stating that it was illegal to question him in the UK, the Swedish prosecutor finally took Julians statement on 14 November 2016. It began:

You have subjected me to six years of unlawful, politicized detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and four and a half years at this embassy. You should have asked me this question six years ago. Your actions in refusing to take my statement for the last six years have been found to be unlawful by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and by the Swedish Court of Appeal. You have been found to have subjected me to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. You have denied me effective legal representation in this process. Despite this, I feel compelled to cooperate even though you are not safeguarding my rights.

Six months later, in May 2017, Swedish prosecutors announced that they were withdrawing their arrest warrant for Julian and the investigation was halted. The London Metropolitan Police released a statement confirming it would arrest Julian if he left the embassy over the bail issue in 2012.

On ConspiracyThese two essays, State and Terror Conspiracies and Conspiracy as Government were authored by Julian in 2006, shortly after the founding of WikiLeaks.

UndergroundJulian contributed research data to Suelette Dreyfus 1997 book Underground: Tales of hacking, madness and obsession on the electronic frontier.

Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the InternetThis book is primarily a transcription of a conversation between Julian and cyber activists Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Mller-Maguhn, and Jrmie Zimmermann about the current state of the internet and what can be expected in the future.

When Google Met WikiLeaksThis book is primarily a transcription of a conversation between Julian Assange and then-Google chairman Eric Schmidt about politics, technology, and the intertwining of the two.

The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US EmpireThis book is a compendium of essays detailing specific aspects of WikiLeaks released of 250,000 US State Department cables, known as Cablegate. Introduction by Julian.

Hillary Clinton: The Goldman Sachs SpeechesThis book contains transcripts of Hillary Clintons speeches given to multinational finance company Goldman Sachs, which were released as part of WikiLeaks DNC Leaks. Introduction by Julian.

In 2012, Julian Assange hosted a political interview show, entitled The World Tomorrow, featuring discussions on transparency, surveillance and world events with a variety of major public figures, activists and academics. Guests included linguist Noam Chomsky, then Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, former Guantanamo prisoner Moazzam Begg, and Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. The show comprised twelve 26-minute episodes and was sold to a number of TV stations around the world.

Continued here:
Julian - Defend WikiLeaks

Only Massive Publicity in US and UK Will Change Things for …

US attorney for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that the arrest of Roger Stone, an ex-aide of President Donald Trump, was an attempt to intimidate Assange. Barry Pollack tweeted that FBI's arrest of Stone served no other purpose other than intimidation. Stone is accused of lying to investigators about his alleged interactions with WikiLeaks.

Earlier, it was reported that Julian Assange had launched a legal challenge againstthe administration ofUS President Donald Trump. The activist's lawyers have filed an urgent application tothe Washington-based Inter-American Commission ofHuman Rights, demanding US prosecutors toreveal possible charges againstthe Australian citizen. The move aims toprevent his extradition tothe United States.

Sputnik talked aboutStone's arrest and Assange's future withProfessor Stuart Rees, the director ofthe Sydney Peace Foundation and Australian academic, human rights activist, and author.

Sputnik: What's your take onthe arrest ofRoger Stone, how could this affect Julian Assange's position?

Stuart Rees: Your commentator used the word intimidation aboutStone. Look, intimidation has been going onfor five or six years, the idea that freedom ofspeech, which essentially WiliLeaks, whatever their shortcomings there might have been, represented, is anathema tosuccessive American administrations, so if Stone was perceived ascooperating or being sympathetic withWikiLeaks, that's why they're outto get him and anybody else who stands inthe way ofwhat an American administration wants todo.

READ MORE:Stone Might Relish inthe Drama' ofMueller's Charges, But Drama's All They Are

Sputnik: I was discussing this yesterday withyou atlength and it's just hypocrisy atthe highest level. We've got the New York Times and The Guardian, obviously, they've released various sources ofinformation publicly, the American administration are not going afterthose media outlets, so inyour view how high are the chances that the legal team will be able toget the requested information onthese charges fromthe US authorities?

REUTERS / Peter Nicholls

Unless we prick the bubble oftheir arrogance, and express a different set ofvalues ina different language ofhow we treat one another, we're always going tohave this sort ofinternational bullying sanctioned bythe American governments and overthe Assanges bythe British.

Sputnik: The element tothis aswell interms ofthe whole protracted case that has been going on, it's going tobe further protracted bythe fact that a lengthy process is going tobe initiated withthe legal process. What chances does it have ofgetting stuck ina legal quagmire now? It's been never ending, it's going tobe never ending interms ofthe legality process, what's your take onthat?

Stuart Rees: They call it legal, they keep oncalling it legal and I've spent enough time incourts oflaw aroundthe world toknow that what claimed tobe legal is often a fiction, that it's aboutthe use offorce, it's aboutpowerful governments and people wanting touse violence directly and indirectly tostifle dissent, tostifle people they disagree with.

AP Photo / Kirsty Wigglesworth

Even Machiavelli told us that the only thing that dictators and powerful people don't likeis tobe laughed at, tobe ridiculed, so the idea that we win bylegal challenge when this is essentially a political issue, I think I'm not going toput any hope inthe legal paraphernalia.

Sputnik: Absolutely, I think we all agree withyou onthis point, it's laughable and hypocritical atthe same time asI've mentioned and it is also prudent topoint outthat President Trump benefited fromthe publication ofdiplomatic cables byWiliLeaks duringhis election campaign; he was able toutilize and leverage those elements ofthe WikiLeaks exposure tohis benefit, now obviously he's ina position ofpower asthe American President and I suppose he has got totow the line interms ofideology, buthe's going againsta particular campaign that assisted him. It's hypocrisy atthe highest order, what's your point onthat then?

Stuart Rees: Well I think if you're completely amoral and I'm not claiming tobe a moral person, butif you're completely amoral, otherwise you can't tell the difference betweenright and wrong, loyalty and disloyalty, which is what we've got withTrump and the appalling mediocracies that he surrounds himself with.

Most ofthem are Christians bythe way, then you and I are talking aboutour sort ofdismay or surprise that he wouldn't help somebody who can help him, butthey were assuming that there's a certain thing called principal and courage toact onthe basis ofprincipal; that's completely absentin this American administration.

Sputnik: Absolutely, thank you forcorrecting me onthat point. Now let me ask you aboutthe options regarding Julian Assange's situation atthe moment and if and when the US charges againsthim are confirmed, what's your particular point ofview?

Stuart Rees: There have been recent incidents inwhich young, vulnerable people have been rescued bymassive publicity aroundthe world, and I'm talking aboutthe Saudi Arabian girl that arrived inBangkok;within days she was given refuge inCanada.

So I am making the analogy toJulian's situation withpeople sort ofbeing anesthetized intothinking there's nothing we can do, he's back inthe Ecuadorian Embassy, and I think we all need, including myself, we need tobe reawakened asto what the threats are toJulian.

Julian has made it easy forsupporters likeme because he insome ways I can't tell which direction he is sailing in, butas I say, this is a political issue, it's called a legal one, butit's a political one and that means that only massive, massive publicity affecting Britain, affecting supporters inAmerica it is going tochange things.

Julian Assange has been holed upin the Ecuadorian Embassy inLondon since2012. He was accused ofrape bySweden, which has dropped the charges sincethen. The accusations followed a grand jury hearing in2011 intopublication ofhundreds ofthousands ofUS diplomatic cables.

The views and opinions expressed bythe speaker do not necessarily reflect those ofSputnik.

See the original post here:
Only Massive Publicity in US and UK Will Change Things for ...

Ecuador’s president says "the road is clear" for Julian …

QUITO, Ecuador Ecuador's president has ramped up pressure on Julian Assange to leave the country's embassy in London. Lenin Moreno said Britain had provided sufficient guarantees the WikiLeaks founder won't be extradited to face the death penalty abroad.

Moreno's comments in a radio interview Thursday suggest that months of quiet diplomacy between the U.K. and Ecuador to resolve Assange's situation is bearing fruit at a time when questions are swirling about the former Australian hacker's legal fate in the U.S.

"The road is clear for Mr. Assange to take the decision to leave," Moreno said, referring to written assurances he said he had received from Britain.

Moreno didn't say he would force Assange out, but said the activist's legal team is considering its next steps.

Assange has been holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012, when he was granted asylum while facing allegations of sex crimes in Sweden that he said were a guise to extradite him to the U.S.

But his relations with his hosts have soured to the point that Moreno earlier this year cut off his access to the internet, purportedly for violating the terms of his asylum by speaking out on political matters.

Assange in turn sued, saying his rights as an Ecuadorian he was granted citizenship last year as part of an apparent attempt to name him a diplomat and ferry him to Russia were being violated.

The mounting tensions has drawn Moreno closer to the position of Britain, which for years has said it is barred by law from extraditing suspects to any jurisdiction where they would face capital punishment.

But nothing is preventing it from extraditing him to the U.S. if prosecutors there were to pledge not to seek the death penalty.

Assange has long maintained the he faces charges under seal in the U.S for revealing highly sensitive government information on his website.

Those fears were heightened when U.S prosecutors last month mistakenly referenced criminal charges against him in an unrelated case.

The Associated Press and other outlets have reported Assange is indeed facing unspecified charges under seal, but prosecutors have so far provided no official confirmation.

Thursday's development comes after a revelation that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort traveled to Ecuador in 2017 in an effort to broker an investment deal between that country and China, his spokesman told CBS News. And during that trip, the spokesman said, Ecuador's president raised the possibility of a deal that would remove Assange from the embassy.

Manafort's trip to Ecuador and what he discussed regarding Assange has become a subject of speculation in recent weeks. Manafort recently dismissed a story that he met with Assange in person during the 2016 campaign as "false and deliberately libelous."

On Monday, The New York Times reported thatManafort discussed Assange'sfate with Moreno at least twice.

Go here to read the rest:
Ecuador's president says "the road is clear" for Julian ...

Why Edward Snowden Is a Hero | The New Yorker

Is Edward Snowden, the twenty-nine-year-old N.S.A. whistle-blower who was last said to be hiding in Hong Kong awaiting his fate, a hero or a traitor? He is a hero. (My colleague Jeffrey Toobin disagrees.) In revealing the colossal scale of the U.S. governments eavesdropping on Americans and other people around the world, he has performed a great public service that more than outweighs any breach of trust he may have committed. Like Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department official who released the Pentagon Papers, and Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear technician who revealed the existence of Israels weapons program, before him, Snowden has brought to light important information that deserved to be in the public domain, while doing no lasting harm to the national security of his country.

Doubtless, many people inside the U.S. power structurePresident Obama includedand some of its apologists in the media will see things differently. When Snowden told the Guardian that nothing good was going to happen to him, he was almost certainly right. In fleeing to Hong Kong, he may have overlooked the existence of its extradition pact with the United States, which the U.S. authorities will most certainly seek to invoke. The National Security Agency has already referred the case to the Justice Department, and James Clapper, Obamas director of National Intelligence, has said that Snowdens leaks have done huge, grave damage to our intelligence capabilities.

Before accepting such claims at face value, lets remind ourselves of what the leaks so far have not contained. They didnt reveal anything about the algorithms that the N.S.A. uses, the groups or individuals that the agency targets, or the identities of U.S. agents. They didnt contain the contents of any U.S. military plans, or of any conversations between U.S. or foreign officials. As Glenn Greenwald, one of the journalists who broke the story, pointed out on Morning Joe today, this wasnt a WikiLeaks-style data dump. [Snowden] spent months meticulously studying every document, Greenwald said. He didnt just upload them to the Internet.

So, what did the leaks tell us? First, they confirmed that the U.S. government, without obtaining any court warrants, routinely collects the phone logs of tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of Americans, who have no links to terrorism whatsoever. If the publicity prompts Congress to prevent phone companies such as Verizon and A.T. & T. from acting as information-gathering subsidiaries of the spying agencies, it wont hamper legitimate domestic-surveillance operationsthe N.S.A. can always go to court to obtain a wiretap or search warrantand it will be a very good thing for the country.

The second revelation in the leaks was that the N.S.A., in targeting foreign suspects, has the capacity to access vast amounts of user data from U.S.-based Internet companies such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Skype. Exactly how this is done remains a bit murky. But its clear that, in the process of monitoring the communications of overseas militants and officials and the people who communicate with them, the N.S.A. sweeps up a great deal of online data about Americans, and keeps it locked awayseemingly forever.

Conceivably, the fact that Uncle Sam is watching their Facebook and Google accounts could come as news to some dimwit would-be jihadis in foreign locales, prompting them to communicate in ways that are harder for the N.S.A. to track. But it will hardly surprise the organized terrorist groups, which already go to great lengths to avoid being monitored. Not for nothing did Osama bin Ladens compound in Abbottabad go without a phone or Internet connection.

Another Snowden leak, which Greenwald and the Guardian published over the weekend, was a set of documents concerning another secret N.S.A. tracking program with an Orwellian name: Boundless Informant. Apparently designed to keep Snowdens former bosses abreast of what sorts of data it was collecting around the world, the program unveiled the vast reach of the N.S.A.s activities. In March, 2013, alone, the Guardian reported, the N.S.A. collected ninety-seven billion pieces of information from computer networks worldwide, and three billion of those pieces came from U.S.-based networks.

Its hardly surprising that the main targets for the N.S.A.s data collection were Iran (fourteen billion pieces in that period) and Pakistan (more than thirteen billion), but countries such as Jordan, India, and Egypt, American allies all, may be a bit surprised to find themselves so high on the list. We hack everyone everywhere, Snowden told the Guardian. We like to make a distinction between us and the others. But we are in almost every country in the world. We are not at war with these countries.

For most Americans, the main concern will be domestic spying, and the chronic lack of oversight that Snowdens leaks have highlighted. In the years since 9/11, the spying agencies have been given great leeway to expand their activities, with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which deals with legal requests from the agencies, and the congressional intelligence committees, which nominally oversees all of their activities, all too often acting as rubber stamps rather than proper watchdogs.

Partly, that was due to lack of gumption and an eagerness to look tough on issues of counterterrorism. But it also reflected a lack of information. Just a couple of months ago, at a Senate hearing, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, one of the few legislators to sound any misgivings over the activities of the intelligence agencies, asked Clapper, Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans? To which Clapper replied: No, sir. (He added, Not wittingly.) At another hearing, General Keith Alexander, the director of the N.S.A., denied fourteen times that the agency had the technical capability to intercept e-mails and other online communications in the United States.

Thanks to Snowden, and what he told the Guardian and the Washington Post, we now have cause to doubt the truth of this testimony. In Snowdens words: The N.S.A. has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wifes phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.

Were Clapper and Alexander deliberately lying? If so, perhaps Snowden should be extradited to the United States and dragged into courtbut only as part of a proceeding in which the two spymasters face charges of misleading Congress. I suppose you could make the argument that he is a nave young man who didnt fully understand the dangerous nature of the world in which we live. You could question his motives, and call him a publicity seeker, or an idiot. (Fleeing to Hong Kong wasnt very smart.) But he doesnt sound like an airhead; he sounds like that most awkward and infuriating of creaturesa man of conscience. I dont want to live in a society that does these sort of things, he told Greenwald. I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under.

So what is Snowdens real crime? Like Ellsberg, Vanunu, and Bradley Manning before him, he uncovered questionable activities that those in power would rather have kept secret. Thats the valuable role that whistle-blowers play in a free society, and its one that, in each individual case, should be weighed against the breach of trust they commit, and the potential harm their revelations can cause. In some instances, conceivably, the interests of the state should prevail. Here, though, the scales are clearly tipped in Snowdens favor.

Ill leave the last word to Ellsberg, who, for revealing to the world that that Pentagon knew early on that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable, was described in some quarters as a communist and a traitor: Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSAs surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans and foreign citizens privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties were trying to protect.

Photograph by Philippe Lopez/AFP/Getty.

[#image: /photos/59095103ebe912338a37265d]

Read more of our coverage of government surveillance programs.

Link:
Why Edward Snowden Is a Hero | The New Yorker

Chelsea Manning, Once Sentenced To 35 Years, Walks Free After …

Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning was released Wednesday from Fort Leavenworth, a military prison in Kansas. In January, then-President Barack Obama commuted Manning's 35-year prison sentence after she requested clemency. Charlie Riedel/AP hide caption

Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning was released Wednesday from Fort Leavenworth, a military prison in Kansas. In January, then-President Barack Obama commuted Manning's 35-year prison sentence after she requested clemency.

Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning has left a military prison in Kansas and returned to civilian life Wednesday, seven years after being taken into custody for what is seen as the largest leak of classified data in U.S. history.

"After another anxious four months of waiting, the day has finally arrived," Manning said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union. "I am looking forward to so much! Whatever is ahead of me is far more important than the past. I'm figuring things out right now which is exciting, awkward, fun, and all new for me."

Manning tweeted a photo of her sneaker-clad feet, taking her "first steps of freedom" Wednesday morning.

The 35-year prison term Manning received as punishment for leaking thousands of military and State Department documents to WikiLeaks in 2010 was described as unprecedented when it was handed down. Before he left office, President Barack Obama shortened the sentence to about seven years.

After Manning's release, her lawyer at the ACLU, Chase Strangio, said, "Through extended periods of solitary confinement and up against the government's insistence on denying her medical care and existence as a woman, Chelsea has emerged with grace, resilience, and an inspiring amount of love for others."

In court, Manning pleaded guilty to leaking secret information but she was acquitted of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy, in July 2013.

On the morning of Manning's release, a fundraising campaign for her post-release expenses met its goal of raising $150,000. In a related campaign, musicians Thurston Moore and Talib Kweli are among more than 30 acts on a benefit album that was released this week, with the proceeds going to Manning.

Military personnel at the prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where Manning was held had not provided many details about her release that was scheduled for Wednesday. Members of Manning's support team also provided little information, citing her need for privacy and time to adjust. They've said she plans to live in Maryland, where she has family.

Manning's court-martial conviction is under appeal; her current status is classified as a special type of active duty, The Associated Press reports, meaning that "she will be unpaid but will be legally entitled to military medical care," the wire service says, citing an Army spokeswoman.

Among the records Manning has admitted to passing on to WikiLeaks were a video showing a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed 11 men and 750,000 classified documents that contained military and diplomatic dispatches.

The 35-year sentence Manning, seen here in an undated handout photo, originally received was described as unprecedented when it was handed down. AP hide caption

The 35-year sentence Manning, seen here in an undated handout photo, originally received was described as unprecedented when it was handed down.

Rights groups have sharply criticized the way the government handled Manning's case; they also faulted the official response to what Amnesty International USA calls "possible war crimes committed by the military" that are depicted in the records she released.

"Chelsea's treatment is especially galling given that nobody has been held accountable for the alleged crimes that she brought to light," says Margaret Huang, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "While we celebrate her freedom, we will continue to call for an independent investigation into the potential human rights violations she exposed, and for protections to be put in place to ensure whistleblowers like Chelsea are never again subjected to such appalling treatment."

Arrested in 2010, Manning had been serving in Iraq and was known as Bradley Manning. After the conviction, Manning announced she was a transgender woman and changed her name to Chelsea. A day after commuting Manning's sentence, Obama said at his final press conference that he felt justice had been served:

"It has been my view that given she went to trial, that due process was carried out, that she took responsibility for her crime, that the sentence that she received was very disproportional disproportionate relative to what other leakers had received, and that she had served a significant amount of time, that it made it sense to commute and not pardon her sentence."

Steven Nelson of U.S. News and World Report talked to NPR's All Things Considered on Sunday:

"Part of the reason that the White House justified granting her clemency was because it was so much longer than other recent leak sentences. In a lot of the cases, people plead guilty and get maybe a year in prison. But 35 years really shocked people. And the seven years that had already been served was seen as enough by the Obama White House."

Nelson also told host Mary Louise Kelly that there's a difference between Manning's case and that of Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor, who leaked information.

"Manning as a 22-year-old wanted to spark a broad worldwide discussion of various injustices she perceived in scandals, whereas Snowden who had access to more highly classified documents had a very specific policy debate he wanted to start about surveillance. And he left the country, rather than be arrested.

"When the Obama administration was preparing to grant Manning clemency, they drew the distinction that Manning had faced trial, that Manning had expressed some degree of contrition. Snowden, of course, is totally unrepentant, feels he did the right thing. So that's a real distinction. He hasn't been tried, he's not sorry, and Manning was both."

While in prison, Manning had to transition as a woman in a male military facility. She has tried to commit suicide twice.

But since her impending release was announced, Manning's outlook has brightened. Last week, she released a statement saying:

"For the first time, I can see a future for myself as Chelsea. I can imagine surviving and living as the person who I am and can finally be in the outside world. Freedom used to be something that I dreamed of but never allowed myself to fully imagine. Now, freedom is something that I will again experience with friends and loved ones after nearly seven years of bars and cement, of periods of solitary confinement, and of my health care and autonomy restricted, including through routinely forced haircuts. I am forever grateful to the people who kept me alive, President Obama, my legal team and countless supporters.

"I watched the world change from inside prison walls and through the letters that I have received from veterans, trans young people, parents, politicians and artists. My spirits were lifted in dark times, reading of their support, sharing in their triumphs, and helping them through challenges of their own. I hope to take the lessons that I have learned, the love that I have been given, and the hope that I have to work toward making life better for others."

Read the original here:
Chelsea Manning, Once Sentenced To 35 Years, Walks Free After ...