OMNI
WIKILEAKS/ASSANGE NEWSLETTER #15,
January 11, 2021
US PERSECUTION OF PUBLISHER ASSANGE
Compiled by Dick
Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology
(#9
July 21, 2011; #10, Jan. 30, 2012, #11, May 25, 2018; #12, April 14, 2019; #13,
Feb. 20, 2020; #14, Oct. 6, 2020).
http://omnicenter.org/donate/
See separate OMNI Manning Newsletters,
OMNI Investigative Journalism Newsletters, OMNI Whistleblower Newsletters, OMNI Constitution Newsletters, and more.
Special connection to the University
of Arkansas is its Journalism Department and UAF’s motto “Veritate Duce Progredi”: To
advance with truth as our leader.
Actions: Ask the UAF to make its actions match its
central principle. Ask UAF’s Journalism Dept. to speak up for
Wikipedia, Assange, and freedom of the press.
And let us join together to abolish the tyrannous Espionage Act.
Contents of #15
al Jazeera: Present situation of Assange
Taibbi: Wikileaks, Assange, and Espionage Act
Hedges: Ratner on Assange
Brown: Free Press at Stake Plus
Tulsi Gabbard’s H.R.8452, Protect
Brave Whistleblowers Act
Janine Jackson: Press Freedom
|
Jan
8, 2021, 1:55 PM (3 days ago) |
|
||
|
||||
|
On the case of Julian Assange, and fearing empire more than
Trump
Just before the madness
at the Capitol broke out Wednesday, news came from London. Wikileaks founder
Julian Assange, who seemed Monday to be the luckiest man alive when a
judge denied an American request to
extradite him, was now denied bail on the grounds that he might “fail to surrender to court to
face” the inevitable U.S. appeal. He goes back to legal
purgatory, possibly a worse outcome than extradition, which might be the
idea. We sell politics in
American media as a soap opera, and the personalities make for lively copy,
but properly following the bouncing ball means watching institutions, not
characters. Where are armies, banks, central banks, intelligence services,
the press? Whose money is talking on the floor of the House and the Senate?
How concentrated is financial and political power? How do public and private
institutions coordinate? When they coordinate, what are their collective
aims? How transparent are they or aren’t they? How accountable? Assange became a
celebrity at a time when popular interest in these questions was at its
zenith in the United States. Eight years of the Bush administration inspired
profound concern about the runaway power of the state, especially a new
secret state-within-a-state the Bush administration insisted 9/11 gave them
the moral mandate to build. Our invasion of Iraq had
been a spectacular failure — unlike pictures of returning coffins, that
couldn’t be completely covered up — and Americans learned about grotesque
forms of war profiteering. These included the use of mercenaries to whom the
taxpayer unknowingly paid lavish sums, to commit horrific war crimes like the
Nissour Square Massacre, also known as “Baghdad’s Bloody Sunday.” One of Donald Trump’s
most indefensible (and bizarrely, least commented-upon) acts was the pardon
of the four Blackwater guards who shot and killed those seventeen Iraqi
civilians, including women and children. The New York Times story covering
the Blackwater pardon spent just four paragraphs on the case, sticking it
below apparently more outrageous acts like the pardon of George Papadopoulos. “Baghdad’s Bloody
Sunday” took place in 2007, by which time we were bombing and kidnapping all
over the world, disappearing people off streets like the Bogey Man of fairy
tales. Detainees were taken to secret prisons where, we later learned,
efforts by prisoners to starve themselves out of their misery were thwarted
by a diet of raisins, nuts, pasta, and hummus rocketed up the back door
through “the widest possible tube.” Even years later, one
Gitmo prisoner would waive his right to appear in court because “rectal
damage” made it too painful to sit.
We made mistakes in who we selected for this treatment, grabbing people with
no connection to anything for torture, as films like Taxi to the Dark Side documented.
However, Americans seemed to lose interest in these policies once the Iraq
misadventure came to a sort-of end, and a new president was elected. The rise of
Wikileaks
introduced an uncontrollable variable into our drift toward
authoritarianism. The WMD episode had shown again that our
press, the
supposed first line of defense against abuses, could not be relied upon. For
every expose like Abu Ghraib,
there were a hundred stories that either went uncovered or advanced official
deceptions. Wikileaks anticipated a
future in which the press would not only be pliant accomplices to power in
this way, but where information itself would be tightly controlled by
governments using far-reaching and probably extralegal new technological
concepts, deploying misleading excuses for clampdowns. [Wikileaks
\Assange public service reporting] One of the first
Wikileaks document dumps involved the Thai government’s blacklist of Internet
sites, which was billed as a way to stop child pornography but had in fact
been used to remove as many as 1200 sites critical of the Thai royal family,
among other things. “The Thai system was used to censor Australia reportage
about the imprisoned Australian writer Harry Nicolaides,” Assange noted, in 2009. Wikileaks also released
the Camp Manual for Guantanamo Bay,
which among other things revealed that children as young as 15 were being
held, along with 900+ other files about a place essentially closed off to
even theoretical press review. Another early dump involved the Minton report,
about toxic dumping in the Ivory Coast by the firm Trafigura, which in yet
another preview of a future of information control had obtained a court order to
prevent The Guardian from printing. In the 2010 Collateral Murder video,
an Apache helicopter crew falsely claims to have encountered a firefight and
lights up a Baghdad street, killing a dozen people, including two Reuters
employees. Somehow even more disturbing than the killing is the dialogue
captured between pilots and base. They’re laughing in parts, saying things
like, “Just fuckin’ once you get on ‘em, just open ‘em up,” “All right,
hahaha, I hit em,” and “Hey, you shoot, I’ll talk.” For all
the talk about the madness of Donald Trump — and I wrote one of those pieces —
this was something more dangerous, i.e. institutional insanity. We were
factory-producing sociopathic murder, by air, in a process that would become more
depersonalized. As early as 2011 we learned the Pentagon was working on
a software-based system for
identifying and eliminating targets by drone, in an effort to remove
the potentially complicating variable of human conscience. The implications
of this are the stuff of sci-fi movies: outsourcing feeling, judgment, and
responsibility to machines, which incidentally would eventually use similar
software to determine how much about these questions could be disclosed to
human audiences. Collateral Murder came out when Americans
were also learning about serious corruption at home. After the 2008 financial
crash, the Obama administration made historic decisions to reorganize the economy through a
series of bailouts and interventions that not only rewarded the worst actors,
but super-concentrated power in the hands of newly merged financial
institutions. The most significant decisions were made in secret, including
at a remarkable post-crash meeting of financial leaders at the Fed whose
lurid story would be reinvented as heroic fairy tale in Too Big To
Fail. Wikileaks
would go on
to release financial secrets as well, including the draft charter of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership and, far more damaging, eighty
pages of transcripts of paid speeches
Hillary Clinton to Wall Street banks, where again the
most damaging revelations were lingual. Clinton was shown admitting she was
“far removed” from ordinary life because of the “economic, you know, fortunes
that my husband and I now enjoy,” while speaking to Goldman, Sachs about the
importance of developing “a middle class that can buy
the products.” By 2016 Assange had been
peeled away from many public supporters. A long campaign of surveillance and
multiple scandals dimmed his star, with lowlights including the issuance of a Swedish arrest
warrant over an alleged sexual assault. People will argue
about whether or not he brought this fate on himself. To me it’s irrelevant:
the issue, again, is the institution, not the person. The institutional
concept of an unregulated leak site has always been the target in this story, far more than Julian
Assange. Even if
one stipulates that every piece of negative news ever written about Assange
is true, his story is still primarily about the closing of an informational
loophole during a time of ambitious efforts to throw a net of secrecy around
the expansion of executive power. It was big news in the Bush years when an American named Jose Padilla was whisked away as an enemy combatant.
In the Obama years, the pushed envelope was the first droning without trial of an
American, al-Qaeda’s Anwar
al-Awlaki. Was he the most sympathetic victim? Maybe not, but the widened
principle mattered. And there was the matter of his sixteen-year-old son,
whom we also killed. These decisions took place in an increasingly large
space exempt from public review of any kind. [Gross abuses of the Espionage Act, which is
itself a gross abuse of law. D] When
Assange disappeared into the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012, there were
already discussions about bringing him to the United States to face treason charges. This was a death penalty offense, the
Brookings Institution noted, not worrying at the oddness of
charging a foreigner with such a crime. Long before 2016, when Assange lost
the support of most liberals for good through the release of the Podesta and
DNC files, politicians like Joe Biden were
calling Assange a “high-tech terrorist,”
language that ought to have raised serious questions given the practices
revealed in Collateral Murder, and cases like al-Awlaki’s: we
kill terrorists, after all. Assange isn’t there yet,
but he’s on his way, a health wreck. As Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi
explained in our interview on Useful Idiots this week,
Assange has not been outside since 2012. He seems destined to end up sharing
the fate of those Gitmo prisoners in head-bags whose condition was one of the
first Wikileaks scoops: kept in a kind of legal nowhere forever, unable even
to escape through suicide. Like the Blackwater
pardon, the Assange prosecution was simultaneously one of Trump’s worst and
least-commented-upon acts. This was a real act of authoritarianism, not some piddling
conspiracy with Giliuanis and Stones, but an act made in full cooperation
with the awesome power of the American state. We’ll learn a lot about the Biden administration’s real attitude toward
Trump’s “authoritarian” leanings by their handling of the case. It should
tell people something that the same Obama
White House that prosecuted eight leakers under the Espionage Act hesitated to go there with Assange. They understood the
implications. When interviewed about the case in
2019, former Attorney General Eric Holder was asked if a publisher should be charged
criminally. “If you are acting in a pure journalistic sense, no,” he said.
“You look at the leaker you don’t look at the journalists.” However, he said,
“if you’re acting at the behest of a foreign power, you are in a
fundamentally different position.” The
Assange indictment, however, is not about working with a foreign power, but
entirely about Collateral Murder-era actions. Seventeen of the
eighteen counts are Espionage Act
charges that criminalize the obtaining, possessing, and publishing of
“national defense information”: The
last count is about the alleged offer to help Manning crack a security hash. Given that each of the Espionage
Act counts carries a potential ten-year sentence, this case is about making
not just the release, but even the solicitation of material like Collateral
Murder punishable by life sentence. You don’t have to like
Julian Assange to grasp the gravity of this. The application of the Espionage Act in this fashion means
that reporting going forward will only be legal when not really damaging.
This is the outcome Nixon wanted
in the Pentagon Papers case (“Goddamn it, somebody’s got to go to jail on
that!”). It makes the reporter on the next My Lai or Abu Ghraib a potential
criminal or unperson. In conjunction with the widespread
recent crackdowns on other kinds of speech by tech platforms, the continued exile of
other transgressors like Snowden,
and the rehabilitation of people like former CIA chief John Brennan, who committed perjury about
these issues in the congressional chamber whose violated sanctity so
infuriated America this week, it’s an enormous power grab — not a temporary one
like the Capitol occupation, but a permanent, far-reaching assertion of
institutional dominance. In our discussion with Maurizi this week, she talked about
having her phone seized and its contents stolen by yet another American
mercenary firm, as part of a sweep apparently done to every
visitor to Assange in the embassy years. “They secretly unscrewed my phone,”
she said, adding that data and pictures from her sim card were downloaded,
her conversations with Assange recorded. “And they knew I was a journalist,”
she said. Even though at least one
of the affected journalists visiting the embassy was from the Washington
Post, there was almost no reaction here at all. We’ve become inured to
these violations. The authoritarian behaviors that freaked people out in the Bush and early Obama years have become as invisible
as air to most Americans, who, lucky for many, mostly stopped following that
bouncing ball the moment Trump arrived. Now Trump is on his way out, but the
lockdown era is just beginning. You’ll forgive me if I’m more scared of that than the other
thing.
You’re on the free list for TK News by Matt Taibbi.
For the full experience, become a paying subscriber. ©
2021 Matt Taibbi Unsubscribe |
Hedges’ review of the Assange
portion of Ratner’s newly released memoir “Moving the Bar”. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris
Hedges publishes a powerful summary of the Assange Persecution Saga, and sets
the record straight by debunking many myths propagated in mainstream
media. –Abel
Chris Hedges: The Empire is Not Done with Julian Assange
BY EDITORJanuary 4, 2021
Chris Hedges: The Empire is
Not Done with Julian Assange
https://scheerpost.com/2021/01/04/chris-hedges-the-empire-is-not-done-with-julian-assange
As
is clear from the memoir of one of his attorneys, Michael Ratner, the ends have
always justified the means for those demanding his global persecution.
Original illustration for
ScheerPost by Mr. Fish
By Chris Hedges /
Original to ScheerPost
Shortly after WikiLeaks released the Iraq War Logs in
October 2010, which documented numerous US
war crimes — including video images of the gunning down of two Reuters
journalists and 10 other unarmed civilians in the Collateral Murder video, the routine torture of Iraqi
prisoners, the covering up of thousands of civilian deaths and the killing of
nearly 700 civilians that had approached too closely to US checkpoints — the
towering civil rights attorneys Michael Ratner and Len
Weinglass, who had defended Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case, met Julian Assange in a
studio apartment in Central London, according to Ratner’s newly released memoir “Moving the Bar”.
Assange had just returned to
London from Sweden where he had attempted to create the legal framework to
protect WikiLeaks’ servers in Sweden. Shortly after his arrival in
Stockholm, his personal bank cards were blocked. He had no access to
funds and was dependent on supporters. Two of these supporters were women
with whom he had consensual sex. As he was preparing to leave, the
Swedish media announced that he was wanted for questioning about allegations of
rape. The women, who never accused Assange of rape, wanted him to take an STD
test. They had approached the police about compelling him to comply. “I
did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange,” texted one of them on
August 20 while she was still at the police station, but “the police were keen
on getting their hands on him.” She said she felt “railroaded by the police.”
Within 24 hours the chief prosecutor of Stockholm took over the preliminary
investigation. He dropped the rape accusation, stating “I don’t believe
there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Assange, although
not charged with a crime, cancelled his departure and remained in Sweden for
another five weeks to cooperate with the investigation. A special
prosecutor, Marianne Ny, was appointed to investigate allegations of sexual
misconduct. Assange was granted permission to leave the country. He
flew to Berlin. When Assange arrived in Berlin three encrypted laptops
with documents detailing US war crimes had disappeared from his luggage.
“We consider the Swedish
allegations a distraction,” Ratner told Assange, according to his memoir.
“We’ve read the police reports, and we believe the authorities don’t have a
case. We’re here because in our view you are in much more jeopardy in the US
Len [Weinglass] can explain why.”
Assange, Ratner recalled,
remained silent.
“WikiLeaks and you personally are
facing a battle that is both legal and political,” Weinglass told Assange. “As
we learned in the Pentagon Papers case, the US government doesn’t like the
truth coming out. And it doesn’t like to be humiliated. No matter if it’s Nixon
or Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat in the White House. The US government will try to stop you from
publishing its ugly secrets. And if they have to destroy you and the First
Amendment and the rights of publishers with you, they are willing to do it.
We believe they are going to come after WikiLeaks and you, Julian, as the
publisher.”
“Come after me for what?” asked
Julian.
“Espionage,” Weinglass continued, according to the
memoir. “They’re going to charge Bradley Manning with treason under the
Espionage Act of 1917. We don’t think it applies to him because he’s a
whistleblower, not a spy. And we don’t think it applies to you either because
you are a publisher. But they are going to try to force Manning into
implicating you as his collaborator. That’s why it’s crucial that WikiLeaks and
you personally have an American criminal lawyer to represent you.”
Ratner and Weinglass laid out potential scenarios.
“The way it could happen,” Ratner said, “is that the Justice
Department could convene a secret grand jury to investigate possible charges
against you. It would probably be in northern Virginia, where everyone on the
jury would be a current or retired CIA employee or have worked for some other
part of the military-industrial complex. They would be hostile to anyone like
you who’d published US government secrets. The grand jury could come up with a
sealed indictment, issue a warrant for your arrest, and request extradition.”
“What happens if they extradite me?” asked Julian.
“They fly you to where the indictment is issued,” Weinglass told
Assange. “Then they put you into some hellhole in solitary, and you get treated
like Bradley Manning. They put you under what they call special administrative
measures, which means you probably would not be allowed communication with
anyone. Maybe your lawyer could go in and talk to you, but the lawyer couldn’t
say anything to the press.”
“And it’s very, very unlikely that they would give you bail,”
Ratner added.
“Is it easier to extradite from the UK or from Sweden?” asked
Sarah Harrison, who was at the meeting.
“We don’t know the answer to that,” Ratner replied. “My guess is
that you would probably have the most support and the best legal team in a
bigger country like the UK In a smaller country like Sweden, the US can use its
power to pressure the government, so it would be easier to extradite you from
there. But we need to consult with a lawyer who specializes in extradition.”
Assange’s British lawyer, also at the meeting, proposed
that Assange return to Sweden for further questioning.
“I don’t think that’s wise,” Weinglass said, “unless the Swedish
government guarantees that Julian will not be extradited to another country
because of his publishing work.”
“The problem is that Sweden doesn’t have bail,” Ratner
explained. “If they put you in jail in Stockholm and the US pressures the
government to extradite you, Sweden might send you immediately to the US and
you’d never see the light of day again. It’s far less risky to ask the Swedish
prosecutor to question you in London.”
Book cover illustration for Ratner’s memoir.
To order, click here.
The US government’s determination to extradite Assange and
imprison him for life, despite the fact that Assange is not a US citizen and
WikiLeaks is not a US based publication, Ratner understood from the start, will
be unwavering and relentless.
In the 132-page ruling (pdf) issued today in London by Judge
Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court the court refused to
grant an extradition request only because of the barbarity of the conditions under
which Assange would be held while imprisoned in the US.
“Faced with the conditions of near total isolation without the
protective factors which limited his risk at [Her Majesty’s Prison] Belmarsh, I
am satisfied the procedures described by the US will not prevent Mr. Assange
from finding a way to commit suicide,” said Baraitser, “and for this reason I
have decided extradition would be oppressive by reason of mental harm and I
order his discharge.”
Assange is charged with violating 17 counts of the Espionage Act, along with an attempt to hack into
a government computer. Each of the 17 counts carries a potential sentence
of 10 years. The additional charge that Assange conspired to hack into a
government computer has a maximum sentence of five years. The judge ominously
accepted all of the charges leveled by US prosecutors against Assange — that he
violated the Espionage Act by releasing classified information and was
complicit in assisting his source, Chelsea Manning, in the hacking of a
government computer. It is a very, very dangerous ruling for the media. And if,
on appeal, and the US has already said it would appeal, the higher court is
assured that Assange will be held in humane conditions, it paves the way for
his extradition.
The publication of classified documents is not yet a crime in
the United States. If Assange is extradited and convicted, it will become one. The extradition of Assange would mean the
end of journalistic investigations into the inner workings of power. It would
cement into place a terrifying global, corporate tyranny under which borders,
nationality and law mean nothing. Once such a legal precedent is set, any
publication that publishes classified material, from The New York Times to an alternative website, will be prosecuted
and silenced.
Assange has
done more than any contemporary journalist or publisher to expose the inner
workings of empire and the lies and crimes of the US ruling elite. The
deep animus towards Assange, as fierce within the Democratic Party as the
Republican Party, and the cowardice of the media and watchdog groups such as
PEN to defend him, mean that all he has left are courageous attorneys, such as
Ratner, activists, who protested outside the court, and those few voices of
conscience willing to become pariahs in his defense.
Ratner’s memoir, which is a profile in courage of the many
dissidents, including Assange, he valiantly defended, is also a profile of
courage of one of the greatest civil rights attorneys of our era. There are few
people I respect more than Michael Ratner, who I accompanied to visit
Assange when he was trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. His memoir is
not only about his lifelong fight against racial injustice, a rising corporate
totalitarianism, and the crimes of empire, but is a sterling example of what it
means to live the moral life.
Assange earned the eternal enmity of the Democratic Party establishment by publishing 70,000 hacked emails
belonging to the Democratic National Committee and senior Democratic officials.
The emails were copied from the accounts of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. The Podesta
emails exposed the donation of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation by
Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and identified both nations as major funders of Islamic State
[ISIL/ISIS]. They exposed the $657,000 that Goldman Sachs paid
to Hillary Clinton to give talks, a
sum so large it can only be considered a bribe. They exposed Clinton’s repeated
mendacity. She was caught in the emails, for example, telling the financial
elites that she wanted “open trade and open borders” and believed Wall Street
executives were best positioned to manage the economy, a statement that contradicted
her campaign statements. They exposed the Clinton campaign’s efforts to
influence the Republican primaries to ensure that Donald Trump was the
Republican nominee. They exposed Clinton’s advance knowledge of questions in a
primary debate. They exposed Clinton as the principal architect of the war in
Libya, a war she believed would burnish her credentials as a presidential
candidate.
The Democratic Party, which routinely blames Russia for its
election loss to Trump, charges that the Podesta emails were obtained by
Russian government hackers. Hillary Clinton has called WikiLeaks a Russian
front. James Comey, the former FBI director, however, conceded that the
emails were probably delivered to WikiLeaks by an intermediary, and Assange has
said the emails were not provided by “state actors.”
Journalists can argue
that this information, like the war logs, should have remained hidden, but they
can’t then call themselves journalists.
A few weeks after Ratner’s first meeting with Assange, WikiLeaks
published 220 documents from Cablegate, the US State Department classified cables that Chelsea Manning
had provided to WikiLeaks. The cables had been sent to the State Department
from US diplomatic missions, consulates, and embassies around the
globe. The 251,287 cables dated from December 1966 to February 2010. The
release dominated the news and filled the pages of The New York Times, the
Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El País.
“The extent and importance of the Cablegate revelations took my
breath away,” Ratner, who died in 2016, wrote in his memoir. “They pulled back
the curtain and revealed how American foreign policy functions behind-the-scenes,
manipulating events all over the globe. They also provided access to US
diplomats’ raw, frank, and often embarrassing assessments of foreign leaders.
Some of the most stunning revelations:
- In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered US
diplomats to spy on UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and other UN
representatives from China, France, Russia, and the UK. The information
she asked for included DNA, iris scans, fingerprints, and personal
passwords. US and British diplomats also eavesdropped on UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the US-led invasion of Iraq in
2003.
- The US has been secretly launching missile, bomb, and
drone attacks on terrorist targets in Yemen, killing civilians. But to
protect the US, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh told Gen. David
Petraeus, “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.”
- Saudi King Abdullah repeatedly urged the US to bomb
Iran’s nuclear facilities to “cut off the head of the snake.” Other
leaders from Israel, Jordan, and Bahrain also urged the US to attack Iran.
- The White House and Secretary of State Clinton refused
to condemn the June 2009 military coup in Honduras that overthrew elected
President Manuel Zelaya, ignoring a cable from the US embassy there that
described the coup as “illegal and unconstitutional.” Instead of calling
for the restoration of Zelaya, the US supported elections orchestrated by
the coup’s leader, Roberto Micheletti. Opposition leaders and
international observers boycotted those elections.
- Employees of a US government contractor in
Afghanistan, DynCorp, hired “dancing boys” — a euphemism for child
prostitutes — to be used as sex slaves.
- In various cables, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is
called “an extremely weak man who did not listen to facts but was instead
easily swayed by anyone who came to report even the most bizarre stories
or plots against him.” Argentine President Cristina Kirchner and her
husband Néstor Kirchner, the former president, are described as
“paranoid.” President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is described as
“thin-skinned” and “authoritarian.” Italian Prime Minister Silvio
Berlusconi is called “feckless, vain, and ineffective.”
- Perhaps most important, the cables said that Tunisian
President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had “lost touch with the Tunisian
people” and described “high-level corruption, a sclerotic regime, and deep
hatred of . . . Ben Ali’s wife and her family.” These revelations led to
the eventual overthrow of the regime in Tunisia. The Tunisian protests
spread like wildfire to other countries of the Middle East, resulting in
the widespread revolts of the Arab Spring of 2011.
Secretary of State Clinton said after the release of the cables,
“Disclosures like these tear at the fabric of the proper functioning of
responsible government.” Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the
Justice Department was conducting “an active, ongoing criminal investigation
into WikiLeaks.” Then US Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) called WikiLeaks “a
terrorist organization.” Former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich called
for WikiLeaks to be shut down and Assange treated as “an enemy combatant who’s
engaged in information warfare against the United States.”
“For those who ran the American empire, the truth hurt,”
Ratner writes. “For the rest of us, it was liberating. With the 2010 release of
the Collateral Murder video, the Afghan War Logs, the Iraq War Logs, and Cablegate, WikiLeaks went far beyond traditional investigative
reporting. It proved that in the new digital world, full transparency was not
only possible, but necessary in order to hold
governments accountable for their actions.”
“On November 30, 2010, two days after the initial release of
Cablegate, Sweden issued an Interpol ‘Red Alert Notice’ normally used to warn
about terrorists,” Ratner goes on. “It also issued a European Arrest Warrant
seeking Assange’s extradition to Sweden. Since he was wanted only for
questioning about the sexual misconduct allegations, it seemed clear from the
timing and severity of the warrant that the US had successfully pressured the
Swedes.”
The efforts
to extradite Assange intensified. He was held for ten days in solitary confinement at
Wandsworth Prison before being released on bail of 340,000 pounds. He
spent 551 days under house arrest, forced to wear an electronic anklet and
check in with police twice a day. Visa, Mastercard, Bank of America, and
Western Union refused to process donations to WikiLeaks.
“It became virtually impossible
for anyone to donate to WikiLeaks, and its income immediately plummeted by
95 percent,” Ratner writes. “But none of the financial institutions could point
to any illegal activity by WikiLeaks, and none had imposed any restrictions on
WikiLeaks’ mainstream co-publishers. The financial blockade applied only to
WikiLeaks.”
Ratner was soon spending several
days a month in England conferring with Assange and his legal team.
Ratner also attended the trial at Fort Meade in Maryland for Chelsea Manning
(then Bradley Manning), certain that it would illuminate how the US government
intended to go after Assange.
“Prosecutors in the Bradley Manning case revealed internet chat
logs between Manning and an unnamed person at WikiLeaks who they said colluded
with Manning by helping the accused traitor engineer a reverse password,” he
writes. “Without supporting evidence, prosecutors claimed the unnamed person
was Assange. Both Manning and Assange denied it. Nonetheless, it was clear that
what Len [Weinglass] and I had predicted was happening. The case against Bradley Manning was also a case against
WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. The two were inextricably linked.”
Manning was charged with 22 violations of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice and the Espionage Act, including aiding the enemy — which
carries a possible death sentence — wrongfully causing intelligence to be
published on the internet, and theft of public property.
“I couldn’t
get over the irony of it all,” Ratner writes. “On trial was the whistle-blower
who leaked documents showing the number of civilians killed in Iraq, the
Collateral Murder video, Reuters journalists being killed, children being shot.
To me, the people who should be the defendants were the ones who started the
Afghan and Iraq wars, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the officials who carried
out torture, the people who committed the very crimes that Bradley Manning and
WikiLeaks exposed. And those who should be observing were the ghosts of the
dead Reuters journalists and the ghosts of the children and others killed in
Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“A week after Manning’s arraignment, WikiLeaks published
an internal e-mail dated January 26, 2011 from the private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting (Stratfor),” Ratner
goes on. “Part of a trove of five million e-mails that the hacker group
Anonymous obtained from Stratfor’s servers, it was written by Stratfor Vice
President Fred Burton, a former State Department counter-terrorism expert. It
stated clearly: ‘We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect.’ Another
of Burton’s e-mails was more vivid: ‘Assange is going to make a nice bride in
prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever.’”
“The e-mails revealed how far the US government would go to
protect its dirty secrets, and how it would use its own secrecy as a weapon,”
Ratner writes. “Somehow Stratfor, which has been called a shadow CIA, had
information about this sealed indictment that neither WikiLeaks, Assange, nor
his lawyers had.”
Jeremy
Hammond
was sentenced to the maximum ten years in federal prison for the Stratfor hack
and leak. He remains imprisoned.
On June 14, 2012, the UK Supreme Court issued its verdict
affirming the extradition order to Sweden. Assange, cornered, was granted political
asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he would remain for seven
years until British police in April 2019
raided the embassy, sovereign territory of Ecuador, and placed him in solitary
confinement in the notorious high-security HM Prison Belmarsh.
The arrest
eviscerates all pretense of the rule of law and the rights of a free press. The
illegalities, embraced by the Ecuadorian, British and US governments, in the
seizure of Assange were ominous. They presaged a world where the internal workings,
abuses, corruption, lies and crimes — especially war crimes — carried out by
corporate states and the global ruling elite will be masked from the public. They presaged a world
where those with the courage and integrity to expose the misuse of power will
be hunted down, tortured, subjected to sham trials and given lifetime prison
terms in solitary confinement. They presaged an Orwellian dystopia where news
is replaced with propaganda, trivia and entertainment.
Under what
law did
Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno capriciously terminate Julian Assange’s
rights of asylum as a political refugee? Under what law did Moreno authorize
British police to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy — diplomatically sanctioned
sovereign territory — to arrest a naturalized citizen of Ecuador? Under what
law did Prime Minister Theresa May order the British police to grab Assange,
who has never committed a crime? Under what law did President Donald Trump
demand the extradition of Assange, who is not a US citizen and whose news organization
is not based in the United States?
“As a journalist
and publisher of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange had every right to asylum,” Ratner writes. “The law
is clear. The exercise of political free speech — including revealing
government crimes, misconduct, or corruption — is internationally protected and
is grounds for asylum. The US government has recognized this right, having
granted asylum to several journalists and whistleblowers, most notably from
China.”
“My view is that mass
surveillance is not really about preventing terrorism, but is much more about
social control,” Ratner writes. “It’s about stopping an uprising like the ones
we had here in the US in the ’60s and ’70s. It shocks me that Americans are
passively allowing this and that all three branches of government have done
nothing about it. Despite mass surveillance, my message for people is the same
one that Mother Jones delivered a century ago: organize, organize, organize.
Yes, the surveillance state will try to scare you. They will be watching and
listening. You won’t even know whether your best friend is an informant. Take
whatever security precautions you can. But do not be intimidated. Whether you
call it the sweep of history or the sweep of revolution, in the end, the
surveillance state cannot stop people from moving toward the kind of change
that will make their lives better.”
[Chris Hedges writes a regular original column for ScheerPost every
two weeks. Click here to sign up for email alerts.]
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a
foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle
East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief for the paper. He previously worked
overseas for The Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor,
and NPR. He is the host of the Emmy Award-nominated RT America show On Contact.
|
Assange,
Snowden and Exposing Abuses of Power
10-29-20 |
10-29-20 12:11 PM (6 hours ago) |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Mailing Address
PO Box 75255
Kapolei, HI 96707
Voicemail
(808) 861-0793
Hawaii, USA
Persecuting
Assange Is A Blow To Reporting And Human Rights Advocacy
By Janine Jackson, Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting. PopularResistance.org (10-18-20) If it were not for a tiny handful of
journalists—ShadowProof’s Kevin Gosztola preeminent among
them—Americans might be utterly unaware that a London magistrate, for the last
month, has been considering nothing less than whether journalists
have a right to publish information the US government doesn’t want them to. Not
whether outlets can leak classified information, but whether they
can publish that information on, as in the case of Wikileaks, US
war crimes and torture and assorted malfeasance to do with, for instance,
the war on Afghanistan, which just entered its 19th year... -more-
FAIR (Oct. 9, 2020).
In a London courtroom, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, an Australian
citizen, has been facing extradition to the US by request of US prosecutors,
who want to try him under the Espionage
Act and put him in prison, and likely solitary confinement, for life. Elite
US news media have awards for reporting based on WikiLeaks'
revelations of war crimes and other malfeasance by the US government. But that
has not translated to defense of Assange, or even interest in his case—despite
its unprecedented nature, and the implications it holds for all journalists who
seek to reveal things the state would prefer hidden.
WIKILEAKS/ASSANGE NEWSLETTER #14
https://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2020/10/omni-wikileaksassange-newsletter-14.html
END WIKILEAKS/ASSANGE NEWSLETTER #15
No comments:
Post a Comment