WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

The United States has denied it is secretly preparing legal action against Julian Assange as supporters of the WikiLeaks founder explore fresh legal moves to stop his extradition to Sweden to face rape allegations.

US Ambassador to Australia Jeffrey Bleich yesterday rejected as ''an invention'' claims that Washington was preparing a warrant for the arrest of Mr Assange over WikiLeaks' role in publishing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables last year.

''There is no such thing as a secret warrant. Period. They don't exist,'' Mr Bleich said.

Revealed: US plans to charge Assange
Philip Dorling
February 29, 2012/Sydney Morning Herald

UNITED STATES prosecutors have drawn up secret charges against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, according to a confidential email obtained from the private US intelligence company Stratfor.

In an internal email to Stratfor analysts on January 26 last year, the vice-president of intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks with the comment: ''We have a sealed indictment on Assange.''


''If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't think I'd have too much of a problem.'' … Stratfor's Chris Farnham on Assange. Photo: AP

He underlined the sensitivity of the information - apparently obtained from a US government source - with warnings to ''Pls [please] protect'' and ''Not for pub[lication]''.

Mr Burton is well known as an expert on security and counterterrorism with close ties to the US intelligence and law enforcement agencies. He is the former deputy chief of the counter-terrorism division of the US State Department's diplomatic security service.

Stratfor, whose headquarters are in Austin, Texas, provides intelligence and analysis to corporate and government subscribers.

On Monday, WikiLeaks began releasing more than 5 million Stratfor emails which it said showed ''how a private intelligence agency works, and how they target individuals for their corporate and government clients''.

The Herald has secured access to the emails through an investigative partnership with WikiLeaks.

The news that US prosecutors drew up a secret indictment against Mr Assange more than 12 months ago comes as the Australian awaits a British Supreme Court decision on his appeal against extradition to Sweden to be questioned in relation to sexual assault allegations.

Mr Assange, who has not been charged with any offence in Sweden, fears extradition to Stockholm will open the way for his extradition to the US on possible espionage or conspiracy charges in retaliation for WikiLeaks's publication of thousands of leaked US classified military and diplomatic reports.

Last week the US Army Private Bradley Manning was committed to face court martial for 22 alleged offences, including ''aiding the enemy'' by leaking classified government documents to WikiLeaks.

In December the Herald revealed Australian diplomatic cables, declassified under freedom of information, confirmed WikiLeaks was the target of a US Justice Department investigation ''unprecedented both in its scale and nature'' and suggested that media reports that a secret grand jury had been convened in Alexandria, Virginia, were ''likely true''.

The Australian embassy in Washington reported in December 2010 that the Justice Department was pursuing an ''active and vigorous inquiry into whether Julian Assange can be charged under US law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act''.

In recent answers to written parliamentary questions from the Greens senator Scott Ludlam, the former foreign affairs minister Kevin Rudd indicated Australia had sought confirmation that a secret grand jury inquiry directed against Mr Assange was under way.

Mr Rudd said ''no formal advice'' had been received from US authorities but acknowledged the existence of a ''temporary surrender'' mechanism that could allow Mr Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US. He added that Swedish officials had said Mr Assange's case would be afforded ''due process''.

The US government has repeatedly declined to confirm or deny any reported details of the WikiLeaks inquiry, beyond the fact that an investigation is being pursued.

The Stratfor emails show that the WikiLeaks publication of hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables triggered intense discussion within the ''global intelligence'' company.

In the emails, an Australian Stratfor ''senior watch officer'', Chris Farnham, advocated revoking Mr Assange's Australian citizenship, adding: ''I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that potentially damage Australian interests upset me. If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't think I'd have too much of a problem.''

But Mr Farnham also referred to a conversation with a close family friend who he said knew one of the Swedish women who had made allegations of sexual assault against Mr Assange, and added: ''There is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves.''

While some Stratfor analysts decried what they saw as Mr Assange's ''clear anti-Americanism'', others welcomed the leaks and debated WikiLeaks's longer-term impact on secret diplomacy and intelligence.

Stratfor's director of analysis, Reva Bhalla, observed: ''WikiLeaks itself may struggle to survive but the idea that's put out there, that anyone with the bandwidth and servers to support such a system can act as a prime outlet of leaks. [People] are obsessed with this kind of stuff. The idea behind it won't die.''

Stratfor says it will not comment on the emails obtained by WikiLeaks. The US embassy has also declined to comment.

WIKILEAKS publisher Julian Assange remains the target of a major US government criminal investigation and the subject of continuing US-Australian intelligence exchanges, Australian diplomatic cables obtained by The Age reveal.

Australian diplomats have closely monitored the US Department of Justice investigation into WikiLeaks over the past 18 months with the embassy in Washington reporting that "a broad range of possible charges are under consideration, including espionage and conspiracy". ...<cont>

Assange and allies claim vast conspiracy as extradition fight hits home stretch
(By Dan Murphy, The Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2012)

Two women have alleged that Julian Assange, the founder of the Wikileaks website, sexually assaulted them in Sweden. Mr. Assange and his supporters insist the allegations are the result of a combination of two women scorned seeking revenge and a Swedish state that is secretly conniving with the US to extradite the former hacker to the US to face charges related to his release of hundreds of thousands of US military and State Department documents two years ago.

Now Assange's nearly two-year fight against extradition to Sweden for questioning over the allegations is heading to the end game. A final decision will be made within two weeks.

The claims of the two women are complicated by the fact that both say they had previously had consensual sex with Assange. One of the two women has told Swedish investigators that she was coerced to have sex with Assange, and that he carried on without using a condom, despite her insistence that he use one. The other said he initiated sex with her while she was asleep, and without consent being given.

Could the pair be lying? That's certainly a possibility. But the insistence of Assange and his supporters that they are definitely lying, that there is no reason to take their accusations seriously, may speak to a siege mentality and, frankly, a disregard for how much difficulty women face in getting authorities to take their accusations of assault and sexual harassment seriously, particularly when their accusations are directed at powerful public figures.

The public position of Wikileaks has been that there's a secret deal between Sweden and the US to ship the Australian to American custody as soon as possible. The evidence presented? None. It's possible that the US has sought a sealed indictment of Assange, but it's also possible that it hasn't. And why Sweden? Unclear.

As British legal analyst Carl Gardner told the Monitor's Ben Arnoldy, under European law the UK would retain an effective veto over a Swedish extradition attempt. In other words, both Sweden and the UK would have to agree to the extradition. It would have been simpler to make the request while he's in the UK, with only one country in the mix.

But no matter, Wikileaks – which Assange says is dedicated to something called "scientific journalism – is convinced. On May 29, its main Twitter account wrote: "Hillary Clinton and State Dept team arrive Stockholm June 3-4; 4 days after Assange extradition decision. Fanciful to think no discussion." The US says Ms. Clinton is heading to Sweden for a climate change conference and to discuss "a range of issues, including green energy, Internet freedom, Afghanistan and the Middle East" with Swedish leaders.

Yesterday, the group wrote in a statement: "The US, UK, Swedish and Australian governments are engaging in a coordinated effort to extradite its editor in chief Julian Assange to the United States, to face espionage charges for journalistic activities."

********************************************************************

I don't know much about natural justice, but the evidence, such as it is, are the claims made by two women in Sweden to the authorities there, on the one hand, and Assange's public denials on the other. It's a classic she-said-she-said-he-said situation, and Assange has made every effort to avoid going to Sweden to formally present his side of the story for over a year-and-a-half now.

To be sure, the US government has made it clear that it considers Assange a danger and would love to prosecute the man if it can find evidence to support an indictment (the "foreign enemy combatant" dodge against presenting evidence in court isn't available in his case). And there are indications that they may eventually find a way.

*********************************************************************

For now, Assange faces no formal charges of any kind. The extradition request from Sweden is for questioning, and the US has made no formal requests for his extradition, from any country. Wikileaks itself is almost entirely consumed with Assange's legal battles. There have been no actual leaks for some time.

But the insistence of Assange and his supporters that they are definitely lying, that there is no reason to take their accusations seriously, may speak to a siege mentality and, frankly, a disregard for how much difficulty women face in getting authorities to take their accusations of assault and sexual harassment seriously, particularly when their accusations are directed at powerful public figures.

As long as there are folks like you JTT, vast conspiracy defenses will have traction.

Conspiracy Theory

By Paul Craig Roberts June 20, 2011

While we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition.

A "conspiracy theory" no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government's explanation and that of its media pimps.

For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times simply because RT reports news and opinions that the New York Times does not report and the US government does not endorse.

In other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-20/conspiracy-theory-paul-craig-roberts-june-20-2011

If only our government was as sly as you believe.

Every once in a while they get it right but most times they simply blunder. Sometimes, blundering is effective.

"Date Rape" happens to women everyday all over the world. It must be treated seriously by authorities.

"Date Rape" happens to women everyday all over the world. It must be treated seriously by authorities. For a long time it was not treated seriously. In the past decade, Sweden modernized its laws concerning sexual abuse.

If Assange really wanted to stand up for his beliefs, wouldn't he go to the United States and ask to be imprisoned in Manning's place? Wouldn't he fly to Stockholm and denounce his accusers from the dock? Wouldn't he dare this US Grand Jury to just try it?

What better triumph - what greater chance at immortality - than to truly be unjustly punished for one's cause, to be sent down by a crooked judge for daring to challenge the corrupt regime?

Assange just doesn't want to face up to what he has done. He is happy to be the avenging hero of Wikileaks, just as long as he doesn't face any actual consequences for his actions.

He wants to conflate an embarrassing sex charge with a global conspiracy.

And he angrily denies reports that Wikileaks' publication of confidential US cables has endangered America's informants - many of whom are really oppressed - in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. So far, Assange makes an unconvincing martyr.

If Assange really wanted to stand up for his beliefs, wouldn't he go to the United States and ask to be imprisoned in Manning's place? Wouldn't he fly to Stockholm and denounce his accusers from the dock? Wouldn't he dare this US Grand Jury to just try it?

1) Julian Assange is not charged with anything in Sweden or any other country.

2) Julian Assange did not flee Sweden to avoid questioning. He was given permission to leave the country on the 15th September 2010, after remaining 5 weeks in Sweden for the purpose of answering the allegations made against him.

3) The case against Julian Assange was initially dropped, and deemed so weak it could not warrant investigation. After the intervention of a Swedish politician close to American diplomats, it was revived by a different prosecutor. [Source: Why is Julian Assange in jail?]

The key legal question was whether the Swedish prosecutor who issued it had the "judicial authority" to do so under the 2003 Extradition Act - or whether the words gave that power only to a court or a judge.

Lord Phillips said five of the seven Supreme Court justices had agreed the warrant was lawful because the prosecutor could be considered a proper "judicial authority" even if this was not specifically mentioned in legislation or international agreements.

However, this point of law had not been simple to resolve, said Lord Phillips, and two of the justices, Lady Hale and Lord Mance, had disagreed with the decision.

Israel media worried over looming indictment
(By AMY TEIBEL, The Associated Press, June 3, 2012)

The Israeli government's plans to indict an investigative reporter who exposed classified military practices for killing wanted Palestinian militants has sent a chill over Israel's aggressive media and evoked dark warnings of a crusade to muzzle the press.

Israeli journalists have repeatedly accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of trying to stifle the press since he took office three years ago.

Critics say the planned indictment of Uri Blau from the liberal Haaretz newspaper goes even further by undercutting the essence of journalism: keeping citizens informed of what their government is up to.

The government replies that despite his insistence that he was just doing his job, the journalist was holding classified documents illegally and will be charged. An Israeli government spokesman declined to comment on the wider issues.

Dozens of Israeli journalists demonstrated Sunday against the planned indictment outside the Justice Ministry in Jerusalem. Officials say formal charges are expected within weeks.

"The charge sheet is directed against all journalists," Haaretz commentator Gideon Levy wrote in his column Sunday. "The next journalist who receives information about a scandal in the Israeli military will tell his source, 'leave me alone. I don't want to get into trouble. I don't want to be another Blau.'"

Israeli news media are famously unruly, exposing alleged government malfeasance involving everyone from prime ministers to lowly city workers on a regular basis. It was unclear if this case would actually tone down the sometimes over-zealous and super-competitive media outlets.

Blau could face up to seven years in prison for possessing sensitive military documents without proper authorizations, despite returning the material to the army.

Legal experts predict it is highly unlikely Blau will ever end up behind bars, saying the state will probably seek a plea bargain instead.

Blau obtained more than 2,000 military documents, including operational plans and lists of potential targets, from a former soldier who copied them from army computers between 2005 and 2007. Some 700 were classified.

He published some of the information in investigative articles, including one in 2007 alleging that the army had planned the killing of wanted Palestinian militants in violation of a court order to arrest them alive if possible.

As required under Israeli law, Blau submitted all of his stories to Israel's military censor before they were published. The censor approved the articles, meaning they contained no information that was deemed dangerous to state security.

Nonetheless, prosecutors have come down hard on both Blau and Anat Kamm, the soldier who leaked the material to him. Kamm was sentenced last year to 4½ years in prison on espionage charges.

After Kamm's 2009 arrest, Haaretz kept Blau abroad for roughly a year to avoid prosecution. He returned to Israel in late 2010 after promising prosecutors to return documents, which he did.

Last week, the Justice Ministry said Blau would be charged with unauthorized possession of state secrets because "the potential for damage in the unprotected possession of the documents was enormous." It concluded the gravity of his conduct outweighed the public's right to know.

In his formal response to the impending charges, Blau said, "Everything I did, I did as part of my mission as a journalist." He declined an interview request from the AP.

Former Supreme Court Justice Dalia Dorner, now president of the Israel Press Council, said she regretted the government's decision to indict, saying Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein had the discretion not to prosecute.

Israel, whose leaders proudly call the country the Middle East's only democracy, is not alone in targeting a journalist who revealed damaging secrets.

Four decades ago, the U.S. grappled with the leak of the Pentagon Papers, documents packed with damaging revelations about America's conduct of the Vietnam War, to U.S. media. In a landmark case seen as a victory for press freedom, President Richard Nixon unsuccessfully tried to suppress publication and crush those responsible for the leak.

More recently, several countries have been embarrassed by documents obtained by the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.

The United States has charged an army private with aiding the enemy, a crime that can carry a sentence of life in prison, for allegedly sending hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables and war logs downloaded from government computers to WikiLeaks.

News organizations that wrote stories based on WikiLeaks material have not been targeted.

Britain's Official Secrets Act bars civil servants from leaking secrets, and several have been charged in recent years. But prosecutions of journalists who receive leaked information are rare in that country. Recently, Guardian journalist Amelia Hill was questioned over stories about a high-profile phone hacking scandal, but prosecutors decided she would not be charged.

In 2005, Germany authorities raided the offices of a magazine that obtained a classified intelligence report about a top al-Qaida figure. The country's top constitutional court ruled the investigation and raid violated freedom of the press.

While Sweden bars the publication of classified information that could harm national security, prosecution is rare. In 1973, two Swedish journalists were convicted of espionage and sentenced to about one year each in prison for articles revealing the existence of a secret Swedish intelligence agency.

In Israel, critics of the government say the planned charges against Blau are part of a broader effort to muzzle detractors.

Parliament has also given preliminary approval to a bill that would make it much easier for journalists to be sued and significantly increases the fines reporters can be ordered to pay, without proof of damages.

Bradley Manning's Wikileaks hearing opens as defense seeks dismissal of 10 counts
(NBC News, June 6, 2012)

FORT MEADE, Md. — WikiLeaks suspect Pvt. Bradley Manning appeared at a military court outside Washington on Wednesday for a three-day pretrial hearing at which his lawyers were seeking dismissal of 10 of the 22 counts against him.

Agence France Presse news agency described Manning as frail-looking while seated between two members of his defense team when the hearing got under way, after an hour-long closed door meeting between lawyers for both sides.

Manning, a 24-year-old Crescent, Okla., native, faces the possibility of life in prison if convicted of the most serious charge: aiding the enemy. He allegedly sent to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables and war logs downloaded from government computers while working as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad in late 2009 and early 2010.

Motions filed by defense attorney David Coombs before the hearing said the U.S. government used "unconstitutionally vague" or "substantially overbroad" language in eight counts of their indictment, in which Manning is accused of "possession and disclosure of sensitive information."

For two other counts, in which Manning is accused of "having knowingly exceeded authorized access" to a secret Defense Department computer network, defense lawyers said the government failed to state an offense.

The defense team also asked the court to compel the government to produce material including investigation reports by the White House and House of Representatives.

One motion accused the government of responding "in its typical nonsensical, smoke-and-mirrors fashion."

NBC News reported that a judge ruled that the government must give Manning's defense team a redacted version of the Defense Intelligence Agency's WikiLeaks Damage Assessment Report. The team will receive the report "almost in its entirety," as only specific classified information shall be removed, NBC News reported.