SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
michael ratner
Assange's US Extradition Battle: The Fight to Defend the Conscience of America
In the uncensored images of modern war, what did we see? We saw our government violating the highest laws of the land.
May 04, 2019
It has been over three weeks since Ecuador illegally terminated political asylum of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the UK police violently arrested him. Assange is now held in solitary confinement in what many have called the UK's Guantanamo Bay.
On Thursday, Assange's fight against US extradition began at a UK court. The US charged him with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion with former US military intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning related to the 2010 release of classified material. His extradition was framed as a case about "hacking".
But, let's make this clear. Assange was charged for doing journalism, publishing information critical for democracy in the public interest, at a scale and speed that was unprecedented. Although the Department of Justice press release on the indictment accuses him of hacking a government computer, the actual indictment accuses him for protecting the anonymity of his source.
This indictment against Assange signals the criminalization of journalism, specifically punishing critical aspects of journalistic practice, related to a story gathering for a newsworthy story published in the public interest. The criminal investigation into WikiLeaks began in 2010. It was part of Obama's aggressive war on whistleblowers. Now, the Trump administration carries on this legacy, by expanding a combat zone to include journalists as their target. But this is more than an attack on press freedom.
WikiLeaks exposed the US government's illegal wars, dirty trade deals, spying, and its secret offshore prison and torture. These documents that they published with a pristine record of accuracy, were not just information. It was her conscience that called Chelsea Manning to engage in a search for moral clarity, as she watched the scenery of a US military airstrike killing Iraqi civilians including journalists in New Baghdad. It was a tiny voice in a heart that remembered our inherent obligation to one another and awakened this young whistleblower to the truth described in her words, "we are human ... and we're killing ourselves ...".
This conscience that was brought forward by Manning and then amplified by WikiLeaks through their method of transparency shone the light into our history. The release of the collateral murder video didn't just expose Bush's war crimes. It revealed darkness inside this nation that goes all the way back to its very inception.
In the original 38-minute video footage that captured the everyday life of the brutal military occupation in the oil-rich Middle East, the colonization of the past was carried over. In the shadow of Iraqi civilians who are paralyzed under the US military gun sight, those who remain frozen in lost pages of history began to reveal themselves.
The cynical naming of the Apache helicopter evokes a memory of the killing of natives that took place long ago in the US. Through access to this forbidden view, made possible by WikiLeaks, we were given an opportunity to witness the historic crimes committed against the indigenous people of America.
In the uncensored images of modern war, what did we see? We saw our government violating the highest laws of the land. These were ideals that inspired America's independence from the British monarchy, expressed in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "all men are created equal".
America represented a new land for freedom-loving people around the world to come together in, to form a new union governed not by the King, but by a rule of law. Yet, despite these ideals, America was never a democracy. From the onset, it contained internal contradiction manifested in the genocide of natives, the slavery of blacks and the suppression of women. But the words in the Declaration of Independence were a promise and the Constitution was meant to be its fulfillment.
The conscience of ordinary people was a vital link that could fill the gap and create a democracy. Out of conscience springs the power of We the People that could truly perform checks and balances of our government. When the laws themselves become unjust, conscience reminds us of our duty to break these laws in order to uphold our ideals.
In our history, we have seen individuals who fought to keep those words of promise through their acts of civil disobedience. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, who demonstrated extraordinary courage for the struggle of Black people to fight against racist laws once said:
"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'It it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
Decades after the civil rights movement, a young US soldier in her act of delivering information to WikiLeaks, risked her life to carry on this American tradition of civil disobedience. As a consequence, she was sentenced to 35 years in prison and served seven years until her sentence was commuted in 2017. Now, by refusing to testify against a publisher at a secret grand jury targeting WikiLeaks, she is once again sent back to jail.
After having witnessed Manning confessing her role as the WikiLeaks whistleblower at her court-martial, the late attorney Michael Ratner acknowledged how locking her up "for even a day is to lock up the conscience of our nation".
Julian Assange is a journalist, but foremost, he is a defender of this America's conscience. Now, the Department of Justice tries to punish him for his courageous act of providing protection to his source, by framing it as though he had conspired with his source to assist in espionage in order to hack into a Pentagon computer.
So, we are now clear what this US extradition case against Assange is all about. This prosecution of Assange and the detainment of Manning are assaults on our conscience. Vicious attacks came from both Republicans and Democrats. Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, designated WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization. Former Vice President Joe Biden compared Assange to a "high-tech terrorist", while California senator Dianne Feinstein urged that Assange be prosecuted for espionage.
Corporate media engages non-stop in smearing, depicting this Nobel Peace Prize nominee as a rapist and Putin's intelligence asset. The former CIA chief and Trump's Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks a hostile intelligence service. Now, using the rhetorical descriptions of "traitor" and "threat to national security", the DOJ tries to extradite Assange and sentence him to life in prison or worse, to execute him.
But, who are the traitors? Who are those who engaged in conspiracy, working in secret to betray ideals promised in America's proclamation of independence to the world?
WikiLeaks' publication of documents concerning wars in Afghanistan and Iraq revealed the US government's conspiracy to perpetuate racism in a War on Terror, with Muslim as the new Black. WikiLeaks' release of the DNC and John Podesta emails pierced the veil of the illusion of an American democracy. It let us see that the Democratic establishment conspired against people, by secretly colluding to undermine Bernie Sanders during the primary and that the Hillary Clinton campaign strategy was to get friendly media to elevate "Pied Piper" GOP candidates like Donald Trump.
Their publication of Vault 7, the largest leak of confidential documents in CIA history revealed that the agency has developed cyber weapons that enable them to spy on us through smartphones and smart TVs. It exposed the intelligence community as a true ruling elite of our society, growing its power with surveillance, military occupation, and financial terrorism.
The US government, with the UK, Sweden and Spain as its allies, bullied a small South American nation to hand over Assange, who exposed the national security state and their conspiracy against people.
There is the other America we have forgotten, the America that has been here from the very beginning, before Columbus discovered this land. It is the heart of the earth that stretches its veins across four corners, sustaining the life of all living beings. This is the true America before it was assaulted by guns and canons and before it was occupied by the few.
By forgetting our own collateral murder, massacre, theft, treaty violations, and cultural genocide that happened on this soil, we have forgotten who we are. As our memory fragmented, We the People became a narrow tribe of Democrats and Republicans. By plunging into national and ideological battle, we wave flags to justify the killing of our brothers and sisters in the name of national security and together we engage in our self righteous destruction of this planet that we all inherit.
Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange reminded us of the highest law of the land inscribed in our hearts. They are real patriots who fought to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. With their love for humanity, they sacrificed their personal liberty so that these unalienable rights can be enjoyed by everyone around the world.
Now the beast of secret law tries to devour them. The conscience has no chance for a fair trial in the empire's justice system. It is defenseless before the Espionage Act. For this vulnerable love of humanity, the public is the only line of defense.
Assange's fight against extradition has just begun. He is fighting for his life, but also he is fighting for all of us. We now must join this battle to defend and free the conscience of America that has become imprisoned in this war on truth. We must become a shield for whistleblowers and publishers. Only through us forming a court of public opinion, can we end this empire and its conspiracy and redeem the torch of liberty that this nation once held as a beacon of light for the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Justice Department Charges Julian Assange With Computer Crime But Alleges Conspiracy To Abet Espionage
The world will see who stands up for freedom of the press and who stands with President Donald Trump’s administration in their dangerous assertion of U.S. power
Apr 11, 2019
The United States Justice Department dramatically escalated its political prosecution of WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange. Their efforts are aimed at criminalizing a journalist--and more broadly, a media organization--for allegedly aiding and abetting the disclosure of classified information and publishing that information on the internet.
Assange was expelled from the Ecuador embassy in the United Kingdom and arrested by British police on April 11. The expulsion and arrest was linked to an indictment and extradition request that was filed many months ago by the United States government.
He was granted political asylum by Ecuador in 2012. His asylum was terminated, and the Ecuador government allowed the British police to enter the embassy to apprehend Assange and load him into a police van.
When Assange was hauled out of the embassy, video captured him urging the UK to resist and fight President Donald Trump's administration.
The Justice Department's grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks charged Assange with "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion." It falls under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and a general part of the criminal code that can be used against individuals who conspire to defraud the United States.
While on the surface it appears the Justice Department attempted to circumvent many of the First Amendment issues, which discouraged President Barack Obama's administration from moving forward with an indictment of Assange, the language in the indictment--dated March 6, 2018--is very similar to what prosecutors typically include in indictments against individuals charged with violating the Espionage Act.
The indictment criminalizes Assange as an "aider" and "abettor" of "espionage" for publishing unauthorized disclosures of classified information on the WikiLeaks website.
"The WikiLeaks website publicly solicited submissions of classified, censored, and other restricted information," the indictment states. "Assange, who did not possess a security clearance or need to know, was not authorized to receive classified information of the United States."
Reporters or editors for media organizations publish stories based upon on leaks of classified information all the time and typically do not have security clearances.
If a precedent were set where journalists had to possess a security clearance, it would create a threat for any reporter relying upon such information to expose abuses of power or corruption committed by the U.S. government, including but not limited to security agencies.
If a precedent were set where journalists had to possess a security clearance, it would create a threat for any reporter relying upon such information to expose abuses of power or corruption committed by the U.S. government, including but not limited to security agencies.
More significantly, Assange holds citizenship in Australia and was also granted citizenship by Ecuador a little over one year ago. Invoking secrecy regulations in the U.S. as part of an indictment against someone who is not an American citizen carries implications for world press freedom.
When referring to an alleged "password-cracking agreement" between Assange and Manning, the indictment contends, "Assange knew that Manning was providing WikiLeaks with classified records containing national defense information of the United States. Assange was knowingly receiving such classified records from Manning for the purpose of disclosing them on the WikiLeaks website."
Here is the part of the Espionage Act that Manning was charged with violating:
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or [emphasis added]
Part of the alleged computer crime contains language alleging Assange violated the CFAA. Yet, the Justice Department mostly shoehorns language from the Espionage Act into the alleged computer violation:
(a) to knowingly access a computer, without authorization and exceeding authorized access, to obtain information that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to an executive order and statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense and foreign relations, namely, documents relating to the national defense classified up to the "secret" level, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States and the advantage of any foreign nation, and to willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, and cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, to any person not entitled to receive it, and willfully retain the same and fail to deliver it to the officer or employee entitled to receive it. [emphasis added]
To the Justice Department, part of the conspiracy involves publishing information that could "damage" the United States. They believe when Assange received the information he should have destroyed the documents or tried to "return" them to the U.S. government. It is but another alarming aspect of this indictment
"It was part of the conspiracy that Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records from departments and agencies of the United States," according to the indictment. "It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records containing information related to the national defense of the United States."
In this section, prosecutors further allege Assange "aided" and "abetted" "espionage" as a co-conspirator by specifically criminalizing the act of using a drop box.
Several journalists and media organizations use drop boxes to accept documents from sources. One well-known setup is called SecureDrop. It would appear the Justice Department would like to establish a precedent that discourages media organizations from using this practice when engaging in journalism.
The second part of the alleged computer crime explicitly notes the indictment is pulling from two sections of the Espionage Act--793(c) and 793(e)--even though Assange was not charged with violating the Espionage Act.
Additionally, there is the timeline of events that appears in the indictment. On March 8, 2010, prosecutors allege Assange "agreed" to assist in cracking a password so she could anonymously access Defense Department computer connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network that held the documents.
Manning had a security clearance because she was an all-source military intelligence analyst in Baghdad. She did not need Assange to help her obtain access. What the prosecutors are claiming is her interest in shielding her identity, and the fact that Assange allegedly was willing to help her protect her identity, opened him up to a charge of conspiracy.
The indictment highlights chats that allegedly occurred between Assange and Manning over the Jabber online chat service. What the indictment does not state is that the account Manning corresponded with was "Nathaniel Frank." The U.S. government believes Assange used this account, but they will have to prove it in order to mount a successful prosecution.
During Manning's Article 32 hearing in December 2011, before her case proceeded to a court-martial, military prosecutors presented evidence they said would show Assange "attempted to devise a way to browse SIPRnet anonymously."
Journalist Alexa O'Brien transcribed much of the proceedings. From her "unofficial" transcript, this is when a military prosecutor described the alleged "password-cracking agreement":
On the screen your Honor is an excerpt of a chat log--again these are the chat logs recovered from PFC Manning's personal computer--and the evidence will show Pfc. Manning asked, 'Any good at LM hash cracking?' LM, the evidence will show, stands for Land Management.
Pressassociation responds, 'We have rainbow tables for LM.' Your Honor the evidence will show that an LM hash is essentially the way that a Windows computer stores passwords on that computer.
***
All of this supposed evidence was available to President Barack Obama's Justice Department. It begs the question: why didn't the Obama Justice Department indict Assange?
The answer may involve the fact that the government still did not have enough evidence beyond a chat log to substantiate the existence of an "agreement" to crack a password. After all, Manning is in jail because she refused to testify before the grand jury and was held in civil contempt. Prosecutors may feel they need her testimony on the "password-cracking agreement."
Or it may be that the Obama Justice Department thought even this charge would raise issues of press freedom that were intertwined with protections, which individuals are supposed to enjoy under the First Amendment. It still targets aspects of the news gathering process itself despite the fact that the Justice Department can claim they are specifically going after a supposed agreement to crack a password.
Regardless, what unfolded is exactly what Center for Constitutional Rights director Michael Ratner, attorneys for WikiLeaks, press freedom advocates, and a small group of mostly dissident journalists and activists warned would happen to Assange. It is why he was granted political asylum. Yet, they were universally treated as delusional for promoting the conspiracy that the U.S. and U.K governments would work together to use a sexual assault allegation in Sweden as a pretext to extradite Assange to the U.S. to prosecute him for publishing documents.
It was evident for well over a month that Assange's arrest could happen very soon, especially when Manning chose to publicly fight her subpoena. The editorial boards of major news organizations, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, sat in silence. They were apparently too concerned anything they said might affect their access to the halls of power. They have never really considered Assange to be a journalist, and believe Manning is a national security leaker, who deserved to be punished.
Now, there are many more details that are known. The "Which side are you on?" moment has come. The world will see who stands up for freedom of the press and who stands with President Donald Trump's administration in their dangerous assertion of U.S. power.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Chelsea Manning's Fight Against the Grand Jury Exposes Battle for Free Speech
Mar 09, 2019
The former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning was sent to jail Friday for refusing to answer questions relating to WikiLeaks 2010 disclosures at a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. She has been remanded into federal custody and is made to remain confined until she testifies or until the end of the life of the grand jury.
Manning, 31 was convicted in 2013 of releasing the largest trove of state secrets in US history, revealing Bush era's war crimes. She served seven years of a 35-year sentence until President Barack Obama commuted her sentence just before leaving his office in 2017.
On March 5, Manning, a network security expert, appeared in Alexandria federal court to fight the subpoena requiring her to testify before a federal grand jury. Outside the courthouse after an hour-long closed-door hearing where the judge rejected her motion to quash the subpoena, she spoke to activists and reporters stating her principle opposition to the grand jury system was that it is shrouded in secrecy.
Manning's subpoena came about three months after prosecutors, from a copy and paste error, revealed the US government's sealed indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The secret criminal charges, whose existence was made known inadvertently in November last year, have been originally filled in the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. In January this year, a U.S. federal judge ruled against the petition filed by the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press that demands the government to unseal that criminal complaint.
Assange attained political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012 to mitigate the risk of extradition to the US, relating to his publishing activities with WikiLeaks. He remains being arbitrarily detained by the UK government in violation of two UN rulings, denied access to medical treatment, fresh air, sunlight and adequate space to exercise.
Manning's fight against this grand jury subpoena further brings out the US government's assault on the free press. Now, whistleblowers are forced to testify against journalists at a secret trial, and those who refuse to cooperate will be sent to jail.
Given the secrecy of federal grand jury procedures, parameters of questions that prosecutors intend to ask the WikiLeaks source is not entirely clear. Manning, after her appearance in the court Tuesday, noted the presence of many government attorneys in the room. The case appears to be part of the Trump administration's efforts to prosecute Assange.
A Grand Jury investigation of WikiLeaks has been active since late 2010, when US Attorney General, Eric Holder at a news conference publicly confirmed it. Since then, this criminal investigation into WikiLeaks and Assange has been ongoing. The late Michael Ratner, attorney and president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights who attended Manning's pretrial hearing in 2013 spoke about the significance of her testimony in putting "WikiLeaks and Julian Assange in the same place that The New York Times would be or The Guardian." He noted there were two of the prosecuting attorneys for the grand jury during Manning's court-martial.
The Washington Post recently confirmed through information obtained by U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity that the case of this grand jury is based on the Manning disclosures era, that is to say not based on material relating to the 2016 Presidential election, and it has nothing to with U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation.
The New York Times that first broke the story of Manning vowing to refuse to give testimony at the grand jury reported that the former US soldier wondered if prosecutors now wanted to try to get her to back away from the account she made during her court-martial.
In a statement she released a day before her contempt hearing for refusing to testify in front of a grand jury, Manning expressed her determination for a continuous fight against this government repression:
"Yesterday, I appeared before a secret grand jury after being given immunity for my testimony. All of the substantive questions pertained to my disclosures of information to the public in 2010--answers I provided in extensive testimony during my court-martial in 2013. I responded to each question with the following statement: I object to the question and refuse to answer on the grounds that the question is in violation of my First, Fourth, and Six Amendment, and other statutory rights."
She then noted she would stand by her principles and is prepared to face imprisonment as consequences of her refusing to testify before the secret grand jury.
During her court-martial, Manning stated her decisions to send classified government documents to the whistleblowing website was motivated by her conscience. She made it clear that it was her sense of moral duty to inform the American public, that made her release documents about US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and torture in Guantanamo, along with US diplomatic cables that sparked a global crisis of legitimacy. In her testimony, she said no one pressured her to do what she has done and that she takes full responsibility for her actions.
Manning's testimony highlighted WikiLeaks' extraordinary source protection that is unprecedented in a history of modern journalism. With its innovative technical infrastructure, WikiLeaks built a system that enables the anonymity of sources, where Assange or any other staff would never be able to know their identities in the first place. Along with its pristine record for accuracy, the organization has never failed to protect the identity of its sources.
The identity of Manning as a source behind WikiLeaks' published documents only became public, due to her failure to follow the whistleblowing site's security instructions. Manning spoke to a computer hacker she met online, who turned her into law enforcement and the Wired Magazine published the chat logs.
For this young American whistleblower who was deeply disturbed by "blood lust" displayed by the US military in the video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007, WikiLeaks was the publisher of her last resort. Manning first approached The Washington Post and The New York Times with documents that would reveal the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After she was not taken seriously by these news organizations, she went to WikiLeaks.
When other media outlets turned away from critical material that provided evidence of the US government's war crimes, killing by the US of Iraq civilians including two Reuters journalists, and their subsequent cover-ups, WikiLeaks, through their publication, courageously defended the public's right to know.
As a consequence of exposing unaccounted power, the organization has met political retaliation under the Obama administration. Assange has become a political prisoner, been gagged and isolated by the President of Ecuador, Lenin Moreno who bowed down to demands of Washington in exchange for an International Monetary Fund bailout. Now he is hunted down by Trump's cabinet that is eager to extradite him to the US.
Prosecuting a non-American journalist who published information in the public interest outside of the US, working with other media organizations, possibly under the Espionage Act would set a perilous precedent for press freedom around the world. Now, the Department of Justice forcing an alleged source to testify against the journalist for publishing government's wrongdoing is hugely alarming.
Recognizing its threat on democracy, leading human rights organizations and civil liberty groups have denounced the US government's unprecedented prosecution of WikiLeaks founder. The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the ACLU, all opposed Assange's extradition. Recently, the city of Geneva passed a resolution that proposes to grant this award-winning journalist and the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize nominee an asylum. In the UK and other European states, this year alone 36 MEPs and MPs demanded UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and UK Prime Minister Theresa May to end his arbitrary detention.
After she was sentenced to 35 years in prison by a military court, Manning said in her statement, "Sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society." Manning risked her life to bring back information that belongs to the public. By refusing to give testimony at a secret grand jury, she now once again sacrificed her liberty and defended the public's right to know. She launched a campaign to raise funds for her legal defense. After being taken into custody, she stated that she would continue to fight against a secret court that is used to "entrap and prosecute activists for protected political speech."
This courage that is now brought back to the court reminds us of a battle that we are all engaged in. The fight for free speech began with this person of incredible conscience. It all started with a tiny voice inside individuals that call them to act in search of moral clarity. Inspired by the source who takes enormous risk to bring social change, WikiLeaks entered into the frontline of this battle, providing a shield for this conscience and letting its voice speak loud and clear.
Now, the force that destroys our fundamental democratic rights is no longer secret. The government's assault on press freedom is an attempt to squash the conscience of ordinary people that want to be free. We must stand with Chelsea Manning to resist this secret grand jury. Only through informed citizens around the world standing up for justice in a court of public opinion, can we end this government's relentless prosecution of free speech. We must fight and continue to shine the light on government secrecy, for democracy dies in darkness.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular