WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Court Denies Dismissal Of Charges Against Bradley Manning
(CBS Radio, June 8, 2012)

A military judge is refusing to dismiss any of the 22 counts against an Army private charged in a massive leak of government secrets in what has become known as the WikiLeaks Case.

Col. Denise Lind made the rulings Friday during a pretrial hearing for Pfc. Bradley Manning at Fort Meade, Md.

She rejected a defense argument that the government used unconstitutionally vague language in charging Manning with eight counts of unauthorized possession and disclosure of classified information.

Lind also refused to dismiss two counts alleging Manning exceeded his authority to access a Defense Department computer system.

She said Manning’s trial, currently set for September, will likely start in November or January due to procedural issues.

Manning is charged with aiding the enemy and other offenses on accusations he caused thousands of classified documents to be published on the WikiLeaks website.

Manning is charged with aiding the enemy and other offenses on accusations he caused thousands of classified documents to be published on the WikiLeaks website.

Nationalism is a major cause of war. Diplomacy is our best hope for preventing war. Diplomacy was disrupted when Wikileaks released secret diplomatic cables.

Assange Lawyers Ask U.K. Supreme Court to Reconsider Extradition
(By Kit Chellel, Bloomberg News, June 12, 2012)

Julian Assange, founder of the anti- secrecy website WikiLeaks, filed a challenge to a decision by the U.K.’s top court that allows him to be extradited to Sweden to face rape charges.

Assange’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to re-open the case to consider a specific point of law, court spokesman Ben Wilson said. The court can decide not to review the case and such appeals are rare, he said.

Assange lost his appeal to a lower court’s ruling to send him to Sweden where he is wanted on rape charges following an 18-month legal fight which ended in the Supreme Court on May 30. His lawyer, Dinah Rose, said at the time she hadn’t been allowed to take issue with part of the ruling dealing with a European treaty on extraditions.

The claims by two women that Assange sexually assaulted them became public around the same time he posted classified U.S. military and diplomatic cables on the WikiLeaks website. Assange, an Australian, claimed Sweden fabricated the arrest warrant to assist the U.S. in punishing him for the breach.

Gareth Peirce, another lawyer for Assange, didn’t immediately return a phone-call seeking comment on the latest filing.

Application to re-open appeal
Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority
14 June 2012

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has dismissed the application made by Ms Dinah Rose QC, counsel for Mr Julian Assange, seeking to re-open their appeal.

The seven Justices who heard the appeal on 1-2 February 2012 and gave judgment on 30 May 2012 have considered the appellant's written application, and the reasons for their decision are set out below. These reasons have been agreed unanimously by the seven Justices.

In addition, the Court has ordered that, with the agreement of the respondent and pursuant to section 36(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, the required period for extradition shall not commence until the 14th day after today.

1.Mr Assange applies to set aside the judgment that has been given against him and to re-open the appeal. The grounds of the application are that the majority of the Court decided the appeal on a ground that Ms Rose QC, Mr Assange’s counsel, had not been given a fair opportunity to address. That ground was that article 31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (“the Convention”) and the principle of public international law expressed in that article rendered admissible State practice as an aid to the interpretation of the Framework Decision.
2.At the outset of her address to the Court Ms Rose gave five headings for the submissions that she proposed to make. The third of these was the relevance of subsequent events, other EU Instruments and the practice of EU States. A considerable volume of documentary material that had been placed before the Court related to these matters.
3.In the course of her submissions under her third heading, as she has accepted, Lord Brown expressly put to her that the Convention applied to the interpretation of the Framework Decision. That Convention, as Ms Rose has recognised, sets out rules of customary international law. Had Ms Rose been minded to challenge the applicability of the Convention, or the applicability of State practice as an aid to the construction of the Framework Decision, or the relevance and admissibility of the material relating to State practice, she had the opportunity to do so. She made no such challenge. Her submissions were to the effect that caution should be exercised when considering the effect of State practice.
4.For these reasons the Court considers that this application is without merit and it is dismissed.
5.Ms Rose has raised a further point which has validity. Para 83 of the judgment refers to offences of which Mr Assange “stands charged”. This is not accurate as charges have not yet been brought against Mr Assange. The judgment will be corrected to read “offences in respect of which his extradition is sought”.

To grant asylum, Ecuador would need to be convinced that the allegations in Sweden are part of a conspiracy to have Assange tried for treason in the United States.