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

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

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

Meeting the mastermind

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

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

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

Angry at the DNC, angry at Wikileaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

The real reasons?

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

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

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

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

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

Now what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Comrades,

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

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

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

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

Here are our suggestions about points to include:

To further help, you can:

Resources youll need:

Assange Amendment_44.pdf

Letter to MEPs Julian Assange.docx

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

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

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

Read our call to action on our Forum!

Photo Source: Council of Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then, where would we be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Podcast music courtesy of Joseph McDade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FNC was brief in its own remarks on the settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just when she thought the persecution was over, Maria Efimova, the whistleblower who helped expose the corrupt ties between organised crime and Maltas political establishment, found that the nightmare was back. On Monday 17 November, Pantelis Varnava, Efimovas husband, was put under arrest in Crete following a request from Cyprus' authorities.

Maria Efimova is a former employee of Pilatus Bank who in 2017 passed on data to Maltese anti-corruption activist and investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia revealing that a secret Panama-based company Egrant, Inc. belonged to Michelle Muscat, the wife of Maltas former prime minister Joseph Muscat. Caruana Galizia had been investigating an intricate web of corruption and money laundering schemes in Malta based on the information contained in the 2016 Panama Papers scandal. Six months after Caruana Galizia published this information she was killed when a car bomb was detonated inside her vehicle as she drove close to her home.

At first, Efimova acted as an anonymous source for Caruana Galizia, but when the official investigation started, her identity was revealed by the inquiring magistrates assistant.

Efimova, her husband and two children fled the country and sought refuge in Greece soon after Caruana Galizias murder.

Aware of DiEM25s and MeRA25s defence of whistleblowers, Efimova approached the movement founder Yanis Varoufakis earlier this week right after her husbands release. At this point, going public, sharing my story with the world, is all I have left to protect myself and my family. Like an insurance policy in case something was to happen to us, Efimova said.

Varoufakis expressed serious concerns over Efimovas safety. The source which exposed a money laundering and corruption scheme involving Maltas former prime minister is now under fierce attack by Malta, Cyprus and a corporate, murderous establishment willing to do anything to silence her. We will fight to protect her, just as we do with other champions of transparency and freedom of information such as Julian Assange, said Varoufakis.

By going against my husband on made-up charges they are just trying to exert pressure on me, this is another twist in the plot, explained Efimova, who has already won a battle against the Maltese government when it sought her extradition back in 2018 and a Greek court ruled against the arrest warrant and extradition request.

According to Efimova, the charges against her husband are false and stem from the time they were in Cyprus: her husband never worked at the company he is now being accused of stealing from. Varnava was released pending a court hearing that will decide on the extradition request. He is not allowed to leave the country and must check in with the police on a regular basis.

In addition, Efimova has recently been receiving threats via Facebook. Comeback to Malta or else we are going to find you one way or other. You have dues to pay here, you frickin liar!!! is an example of the types of messages she has been targeted with. She filed a police report and reported the posts to Facebook. The social network has not responded to her reports.

Link:
Whistleblower Maria Efimova fears for her safety amid threats and new arrest warrants - Open Democracy