WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Mr Assange lay on AA forcibly restricting her movemet

There is a fine line between supporting victims and protecting the rights of the accused. Yet, considering the unique challenges of trying and defending rape cases combined with the potential costs to the falsely accused, being able to assess the credibility of the alleged victim takes on special importance. Inconsistencies in the accuser's complaint should be confronted gently and respectfully, with awareness of the fact that true victims may distort or even lie out of embarrassment or shame.

After proceedings in the courts of Sweden, [...] a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued on 26 November 2010 by the Swedish Prosecution Authority [...]. The warrant [...] set out four offences:

1. Unlawful coercion

On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. Sexual molestation

On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. Sexual molestation

On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. Rape

On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

Update on the Bradley Manning Case
(By Zachary Eddington, LawfareBlog.com, January 14, 2013)

Last week saw several new developments in the Bradley Manning case. Prosecutors announced on Wednesday that they intend to offer evidence that Osama bin Laden received some of the classified information that Manning allegedly provided to WikiLeaks. The government, relying in part on a Civil War precedent, plans to use the evidence to support a charge of aiding the enemy, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

The other big news was the judge’s decision to grant Manning a 112-day reduction from his possible prison sentence because of mistreatment while in custody (Manning’s allegations are detailed in his motion to dismiss for unlawful pretrial punishment). Given the serious charges that Manning faces, this reduction is likely to be mostly symbolic. The defense had asked for dismissal of all charges or credit on a ten-to-one basis for time served in harsh conditions.

Several important rulings are expected over the next few weeks. The court heard arguments last Tuesday on the prosecution’s motions to prohibit the defense from discussing Manning’s motive for the leaks or possible overclassificaiton of the information. This week, the court is scheduled to hear arguments on Manning’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The trial itself has been postponed until June 3 to allow the judge to determine which classified information may be considered at trial.

WikiLeaks case could hinge on whether Manning had reason to believe his actions could harm US
(The Associated Press, January 16, 2013)

The trial of an Army private charged with giving classified information to the WikiLeaks website may hinge on what he knew — or should have known — about the consequences of his alleged actions.

A military judge made a pretrial ruling Wednesday about what prosecutors must prove to convict Pfc. Bradley Manning of the most serious charge he faces. He’s accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of battlefield reports and State Department cables while working as an intelligence analyst in Iraq.

The most serious charge is aiding the enemy. Col. Denise Lind ruled that for Manning to be convicted of that offense, prosecutors must prove he knew the material would be seen by al-Qaeda members.

Defense attorneys can present evidence Manning selectively leaked information that wouldn’t harm the United States.

Assange protesters to push on
(Australian Associated Press, January 22, 2013)

British university student Simone Webb is the driving force behind a gathering on Wednesday which will coincide with a televised address by the 41-year-old Australian.

"On the internet ... Assangists have been increasingly vitriolic," Ms Webb told AAP of the response she faced on sites such as twitter, since launching her protest plans.

"They have looked up personal information about me and accused me of being involved in some way with the Ministry of Defence."

Assange has been invited by the Oxford Union to speak at the university society's annual Sam Adams Award, which recognises an individual who has displayed "courage, persistence and devotion to the truth" in the name of the former CIA analyst.

A past recipient of the award, Assange will make Wednesday's address from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he is avoiding arrest by UK authorities after being granted asylum by the Latin American nation.

Assange is wanted in Sweden for questioning over allegations of sexual assault against two women. He denies the claims and said his extradition to Sweden would be the first step in him being handed to US authorities, who are investigating the operations of his secret-leaking website.

"I am holding the protest for a number of reasons. Primarily to highlight the inappropriateness and irony of having someone speak at an awards ceremony supposed to celebrate integrity, justice, courage and truth-seeking who is himself evading the justice process by hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy," Ms Webb said.

"Secondly, this is about challenging society's treatment of rape allegations, and the way they are minimised and ignored."

Ms Webb said more than 100 people will gather, wave placards and chant in a peaceful protest against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

"I anticipate no disturbances," she said.

A second group of protesters is also expected outside the embassy in London, where Assange supporters are also being rallied.

Assange's Brisbane-based mother, Christine Assange, asked that supporters gather in silent counter-protest, holding placards with facts about the case of her son and WikiLeaks.

The speech is due to be made at 7.30pm Wednesday.

Primarily to highlight the inappropriateness and irony of having someone speak at an awards ceremony supposed to celebrate integrity, justice, courage and truth-seeking who is himself evading the justice process by hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy," Ms Webb said.

Julian Assange finds no allies and tough queries in Oxford University talk
(Amelia Hill, The Guardian, 23 January 2013)

His critics were reasoned, those who queued for over an hour in the snow to hear him speak were thoughtful. It was Julian Assange – the man at the centre of controversy – who refused to be gracious.

Speaking by video link from his refuge at the Ecuadorean embassy to undergraduates at Oxford University as part of an awards ceremony celebrating whistleblowers, Assange gave an impassioned defence of WikiLeaks and against censorship of all kinds.

But in the Q and A session that came afterwards, the former winner of the Sam Adams award repeatedly refused to answer questions about his decision not to return to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

"How much longer are you going to stay in the Ecuadorean embassy?" asked one undergraduate. "We will see," Assange said, then smiling: "Who knows?"

The next student fared no better. "Sweden is a free country with an independent judiciary. Why do you resist being questioned in that country?"

Assange's smile faded. "I have answered these questions extensively in the past," he replied sharply and referred the student to a website.

A question about cyber terrorism was greeted with verbose warmth. Rachel Savage, a 22-year-old PPE student then asked: "What would you say to the protesters outside who say your appearance tonight diminishes the seriousness of rape and sexual assault?"

Assange half closed his eyes and sighed. "I heard there was a protest but we sent our cameras out there before joining you tonight and there were 28 supporters of me and of no one else."

Before the event, however, there had been at least 50 protesters and no supporters of Assange to be seen. After the ceremony, security staff confirmed they had not seen anyone defending the WikiLeaks founder all evening.

Waving her anti-Assange banner while around 400 undergraduates queued to get into the hall, Simone Webb, the protest organiser, insisted the demonstration was not a stand against free speech.

"I don't think that by saying the Oxford Union should not have invited Assange I am in any way questioning their right or freedom to do so," she said. "Nor do I think Assange should be censored. I'm not necessarily advocating a blanket no platform policy: I would feel somewhat differently were he speaking at a debate where there would be more opportunity for him to be challenged and held to account.

"The motivation for this protest is twofold. Primarily that Assange's continued evasion of justice makes it hugely ironic that he's speaking at an awards ceremony about truth, justice, integrity and courage. And, secondly, protesting to challenge the marginalisation of rape allegations in society as a whole and also by the union in particular."

Driven by a determination to see Assange, around 400 students had waited for over an hour in the driving snow to get a seat. "I'm conflicted about being here," said David, who refused to give his full name, "because I'm struggling to figure out where I stand on this Assange issue. I believe he should be on trial but he's an important figurehead and I'm interested in what he has to say."

As she stood waiting to enter the hall, Savage said: "I'm glad the protesters are demonstrating about the evasion of the rape allegations but I'm not standing with them because I don't oppose him speaking."

After Assange's response to her question however, Savage was left sanguine. "This has confirmed to me that he's evading justice," she said. "He didn't even answer my question, he just made a disparaging comment about the protesters. He showed no respect at all for victims of the types of crime that he has been accused of."

4th Circuit rules for government on WikiLeaks data
(The Associated Press, January 27, 2013)

A federal appeals court has ruled for the government and its electronic investigation into the disclosure of classified documents on the secret-busting WikiLeaks website.

The case involves three Twitter account holders with some connection to WikiLeaks.

They had argued that forcing the website to cooperate with the investigation by turning over data amounts to an invasion of privacy and has a chilling effect on free speech.

Ruling Friday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their appeal and affirmed a court order that Twitter must turn over limited account information.

Under the Stored Communications Act, the government can also keep sealed documents related to their investigation from the subscribers. The judges concluded the subscribers had no First Amendment right to access the documents.

Julian Assange loses ally as Jemima Khan attacks WikiLeaks founder
(David Sanderson and John Simpson, The Times, February 07, 2013)

Jemima Khan has launched a blistering attack on Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder turned Ecuadorean embassy stowaway, warning him that he risks going from Jason Bourne to L. Ron Hubbard.

Ms Khan, who has defended Mr Assange through his battles with democracies, dictatorships and judges, said that his organisation had gone from speaking truth to power to expecting "blinkered, cultish devotion".

She said WikiLeaks was now as "guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as it sought to expose".

She has, she writes in the New Statesman, gone on a journey of "admiration to demoralisation" with Assange.

"I have seen flashes of Assange's charm, brilliance and insightfulness," she writes. "But I have also seen how instantaneous rock-star status has the power to make even the most clear-headed idealist feel they are above the law and exempt from criticism."

And he should definitely be standing trial in Sweden, she added.

Ms Khan joins the list of "alienated and disaffected" one-time allies of Mr Assange. He fell out with his earliest WikiLeaks collaborators, the journalists with whom he worked on the leaked US diplomatic cables that brought him such admiration and infamy, and his lawyers, not to mention the publisher who paid him a reported 500,000-pound advance for an autobiography only for Mr Assange to withdraw his support on the eve of publication.

And, of course, Britain, Sweden and the US, which Mr Assange argues will extradite him from Sweden to face espionage charges. Ecuador is still on his side, it seems.

Mr Assange has been holed up in the country's embassy in London's Knightsbridge since June after he lost a protracted legal battle to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over allegations of rape and sexual abuse made by two women. He jumped bail, in the process surrendering the 200,000 pounds that supporters including Ms Khan had put up as surety.

Police continue to keep a close eye on his Knightsbridge bolthole, where he apparently spends his time playing on his computer and lying under a sunbed,

Ms Khan, daughter of the late billionaire Sir James Goldsmith and former wife of Pakistan cricketer Imran Khan, said she did not regret putting up the bail money but added that it had been done so "that he would be released while awaiting trial, not so that he could avoid answering to the allegations". She said his avoidance of extradition was "undermining both himself and his transparency agenda".

When she was executive producer of We Steal Secrets, Alex Gibney's documentary about WikiLeaks, Mr Assange wrote to her saying "if it's a fair film, it will be pro-Julian Assange".

Ms Khan writes: "Beware the celebrity who refers to himself in the third person."

Some Assange allies, including the distinguished Sunday Times journalist Philip Knightley and Vaughan Smith, who housed him for many months before he fled to the Ecuadorean quarter of London, remain supportive. Mr Smith said last night that "he was a pretty loyal chap" adding: "There's a certain decency in supporting the underdog."

Ms Khan writes that after the WikiLeaks dump of diplomatic cables she had asked Mr Assange if he was the "new Jason Bourne" before adding: "It would be a tragedy if a man who has done so much good were to end up tolerating only disciples and unwavering devotion, more like an Australian L. Ron Hubbard."

Bradley Manning pleads guilty to 10 charges but denies 'aiding the enemy'
(Ed Pilkington, The Guardian, 28 February 2013)

Bradley Manning has pleaded guilty to having been the source of the massive WikiLeaks dump of US state secrets, though he has denied the most serious charge against him that he "aided the enemy" that could see him languishing in military prison for the rest of his life.

Through his lawyer, David Coombs, the soldier pleaded guilty to 10 lesser charges that included possessing and wilfully communicating to an unauthorised person all the main elements of the WikiLeaks disclosure. That covered the so-called "collateral murder" video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq; some US diplomatic cables including one of the early WikiLeaks publications the Reykjavik cable; portions of the Iraq and Afghanistan warlogs, some of the files on detainees in Guantanamo; and two intelligence memos.

These lesser charges each carry a two-year maximum sentence, committing Manning to a possible upper limit of 20 years in prison.

Manning also pleaded not guilty to 12 counts which relate to the major offences of which he is accused by the US government. Specifically, he pleaded not guilty to "aiding the enemy" – the idea that he knowingly gave help to al-Qaida and in a separate count that by causing secret intelligence to be published on the internet he knowingly made it accessible to the enemy.

He also denied that at the time he made the transmission of information to WikiLeaks he had "reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation".

With Manning having pleaded not guilty to these overarching charges, the prosecution is now almost certain to press ahead to a full court-martial which is currently set for 3 June. The judge has indicated that the trial could run for 12 weeks, although Manning's guilty plea to the lesser charges may short-circuit the process as the government will no longer have to prove that he acquired and communicated the trove of classified material to WikiLeaks.

Manning confirmed that he wishes the trial to be conducted by the judge, Colonel Denise Lind, presiding in the case sitting alone. There will be no military equivalent of a jury.

Lind made clear that she will reserve her judgment on whether or not to accept Manning's guilty pleas until a later date. She has no power to influence the charges other than to ensure that they are consistent with the law – which she has already done.

She does, however, have the responsibility to ensure that Manning has made his plea in full knowledge of what it means for his future, and voluntarily with no coercion.

They will now spend the rest of the day in deliberations designed to meet that responsibility. Lind has said that Manning will be allowed to read out a statement, believed to run to 35 pages, that explains his decisions and may reveal his thinking about what he did and why he did it in transmitting such a huge mountain of classified material to WikiLeaks.

I read more of the diplomatic cables published on the Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy. With my insatiable curiosity and interest in geopolitics I became fascinated with them. I read not only the cables on Iraq, but also about countries and events that I found interesting.

The more I read, the more I was fascinated with the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity that didn't seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world.

Up to this point,during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.

The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS [missed word] caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.

The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.

I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.

I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations.

In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information might make some within the Department of State and other government entities unhappy. On 22 March 2010, I began downloading a copy of the SIPDIS cables using the program Wget, described above.

I used instances of the Wget application to download the Net Centric Diplomacy cables in the background. As I worked on my daily tasks, the Net centric Diplomacy cables were downloaded from 28 March 2010 to 9 April 2010. After downloading the cables, I saved them on to a CD-RW.

These cables went from the earliest dates in Net Centric Diplomacy to 28 February 2010. I took the CD-RW to my CHU on 10 April 2010. I sorted the cables on my personal computer, compressed them using the bzip2 compression algorithm described above, and uploaded them to the WLO via designated drop box described above.

On 3 May 2010, I used Wget to download and update of the cables for the months of March 2010 and April 2010 and saved the information onto a zip file and burned it to a CD-RW. I then took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved those to my computer. I later found that the file was corrupted during the transfer. Although I intended to re-save another copy of these cables, I was removed from the T-SCIF on 8 May 2010 after an altercation.