End the special relationship:it's being used against freedom

The peoples of the United States and the United Kingdom must take a stance against the abusive diplomatic "special relationship" between the two countries.

It is being used as part of a major assault by America's Deep State and Britain's Establishment against the nemesis of those hoary conspiracies: Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange.

I will do my part. I am an American who was born American but who also was given British citizenship. That is, I had dual nationality.

No longer. I want it known that I repudiate any claim I might have on British citizenship. I don't care to retain that citizenship, despite the potential for technical benefits, such as a right to stay longer in the UK than a tourist.

To repeat:

I repudiate any claim on British citizenship. I adhere solely to my U.S. citizenship, God helping.

I wish that act to serve as a symbol of the necessity of ending the "special relationship," which has become a tool in the hands of security bureaucracies for the suppression of basic freedoms.

Obviously, this choice does not imply that my affection for the British people has diminished.

Manning freed after grand jury disbands

Manning freed after grand jury disbands

---

But formation of another panel
could see her back in the slam

---

Trenga gives defense attorneys nothing

---

The grand jury's term having expired, a federal "intelligence court" judge ordered Chelsea Manning released from coercive confinement for refusing to testify in the WikiLeaks affair.

But, considering that District Judge Anthony J. Trenga had ordered Manning held in contempt for most of the duration of the grand jury's term, about a year, chances are strong that Manning will be called again to testify before another grand jury called in the U.S. government's attempt to hit Julian Assange with computer intrusion charges. Without Manning's cooperation, federal prosecutors have only dubious Espionage Act charges, which are being used in a fashion a great many people see as an assault on press freedom.

Trenga also ordered Manning to pay $256,000 in fines that he had imposed on her for refusing to testify. Manning cannot remain silent under the Fifth Amendment because she is immune from prosecution in the WikiLeaks matter on account of double jeopardy.

Trenga's order does not address the issue that the amount of coercive pressure applied against Manning gives the impression that the government is trying to force Manning to "compose" something that it can use to nail Assange. Trenga sits in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division -- which is where most matters involving intelligence are tried. Federal prosecutors in such cases have a track record of success that raises concerns of defense lawyers about the impartiality of the system there.

Guardian story
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/12/chelsea-manning-jail-release-virginia https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/12/chelsea-manning-jail-release-virginia

Order to release Manning reprinted below:

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v
JOHN DOE

2010R03793Grand Jury 19-3Case No. 1:19-dm-12-AJT-2
ORDER

By Order dated May 6, 2019 [Doc. 2], the Court granted Chelsea Manning full use and derivative use immunity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002, and ordered Ms. Manning to testify and provide other information in the above-captioned grand jury proceeding ("Grand Jury"). Subsequently, on May 16, 2019, after Ms. Manning stipulated that she would refuse to comply with the Court's May 6, 2019 Order, the Court found Ms. Manning in civil contempt,determined that a coercive sanction against Ms. Manning was appropriate, and remanded Ms.Manning to the custody of the Attorney General until such time as she purges herself of contempt or for the life of the Grand Jury, but in no event longer than 18 months. [Doc. 9]. In that May 16, 2019 Order, the Court also ordered that, if Ms. Manning did not purge herself of contempt within thirty (30) days, she shall incur a conditional fine of $500 per day until such time as she purges herself of contempt; and if she did not purge herself of contempt within sixty (60) days after issuance of the Order, she shall incur a conditional fine of $1,000 per day until such time as she purges herself of contempt or for the life of the grand jury, whichever occurs first. Id. at 2.

By Order dated August 5, 2019 [Doc. 27], the Court granted Ms. Manning credit for the time she previously served in connection with a prior grand jury matter (Grand Jury 18-4), id. at Case 1:19-dm-00012-AJT Document 41 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID# 1534 Case 1:19-dm-00012-AJT Document 41 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID# 1535 Case 1:19-dm-00012-AJT Document 41 Filed 03/12/20

In that same order, the Court also reiterated its prior ruling that Ms. Manning incur a fine for each day she remained in contempt or for the life of the grand jury, whichever occurred first. id.

By separate order dated August 5, 2019 [doc 28], the Court denied Ms. Manning's Motion to Reconsider [Doc 14] upon finding, inter alia, that ms. manning "has the ability to comply with the court's financial sanctions or will have the ability [to] after her release from confinement," id. at 2.

On February 19, 2020, Ms. Manning, through counsel, filed the currently pending Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Release Witness [Doc 31] ("the Motion"), in which she moves the Court "to vacate the sanctions imposed upon her, as these sanctions exceed their lawful civil functions as coercive...." Id. at 1. More specifically, Ms. Manning contends that under the circumstances of her case, enforcement of the conditional fines would be punitive. Id. at 22-25.

By order dated March 12, 2020, after finding that the business of grand jury 19-3 had concluded, the Court dismissed Grand Jury 19-3.

Upon consideration of the Court's May 16, 2019 order, the Motion, and the Court's March 12, 2020 order discharging Grand Jury 19-3, the Court finds that Ms. Manning's appearance before the grand jury is no longer needed, in light of which her detention no longer serves any coercive purpose. The Court further finds that enforcement of the accrued, conditional fines would not be punitive but rather necessary to the coercive purpose of the court's civil contempt order. Accordingly, is hereby

ORDERED that Chelsea Manning be, and she hereby is, immediately RELEASED from the custody of the Attorney General; and it is further

ORDERED that Chelsea Manning's Motion [Doc 31] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED with respect to Ms. Manning's request to vacate the conditional fines accrued against her to date, and is otherwise DENIED as moot; and it is further

ORDERED that judgment be, and the same hereby is, entered against Chelsea Manning in the amount of $256,000, the total amount of her accrued, conditional fines as of March 12, 2020, which is due and payable immediately to the Clerk; and it is further

ORDERED that a hearing on Chelsea Manning's motion [Doc 31], currently scheduled for Friday, March 13, 2020 at 2:30 p.m. be, and the same hereby is, CANCELLED as moot. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in the amount of $256,000.00 in accordance with this Order and forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to the United States Marshals. Signed

Anthony J. Trenga

United States District Judge

Alexandria, Virginia March 12, 2020

Assange a victim of U.S. D-Notice system

Assange a victim of U.S. D-Notice system

Fox permits lone commentator to back Assange
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOJFFZQTl_U

Tucker Carlson has consistently backed Julian Assange's press freedom rights and questioned the motives of those who are intent on imprisoning him.

In the episode linked above, Carlson speaks with Roger Waters, a founder of Pink Floyd and a strong supporter of Assange.

As excellent as is Carlson's stance, unfortunately it looks as though Fox finds Carlson to be a useful token. If one Fox broadcaster can support Assange's press rights, then Fox need do no more. At least, that's the message -- and no doubt the Trump administration is receiving the message that Assange has no real support from Fox.

It's hard to see how Fox differs substantially from The New York Times, which also has turned its back on Assange and the press freedoms of everyone inside and outside America. Apparently both Fox and the Times have been obeying what the British call a D-Notice with respect to the names "Eric Ciamarella" and "Sean Misko" -- whether or not those names are directly tied to the Ukraine phone call "whistleblower."

From the behavior of Chief Justice John Roberts during President Trump's impeachment trial, it is becoming crystal clear that there exists in Washington a British style D-Notice system for controlling what the press may talk about. Otherwise, how does one explain Roberts' refusal to read a question aloud submitted by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.?

Those in government and press who fail to kowtow to this system are ostracized and penalized. For example, YouTube blacked out a video in which Paul uttered those names without once associating them with the "whistleblower."

Paul was citing a report that those two men had talked among National Security Council colleagues about how they would oust Trump from the White House long before the Ukraine phone call came up.
So the topic was legitimate, relevant and potentially important. But, evidently once the names had been  barred from public discussion, neither relevancy nor newsworthiness mattered. What mattered was the authority of those putting out the D-Notice.

As for the Assange situation, even though the Times published materials provided by WikiLeaks, the newspaper is now behaving as though it only unwillingly violated the hush-hush D-Notice system, forced to do so by competitor access to the WikiLeaks materials. So, the paper is signaling, the establishment media favors enforcing the D-Notice system, even to the point of imprisoning Assange for many years.

And one more thing: A "D-Notice" has been put out prohibiting public discussion of America's D-Notice system.

Some say "D" is for "defense." Others say "D" is for "damned."

Exclusive to OpEdNews: OpEdNews Op Eds 3/1/2020 at 03:14:22    H2'ed 3/1/20 Burning Assange at the stake By Paul Conant       (Page 1 of 1 pages) (View How Many People Read This)   No comments

Publishing official documents that may put lives at risk is possibly a crime in Britain. But it is not a crime in the United States, especially not during a period when war has not been declared by Congress.

Hence, federal prosecution claims that Julian Assange put lives at risk are irrelevant as a matter of U.S. Constitutional law. In addition, the press in virtually every free country puts the lives of unconvicted (hence innocent) suspects and victims at risk by publishing details that might be used by malevolent persons. Such is the price of press freedom.

There is on the books a law that makes it a crime to publicly expose the name of a covert CIA or U.S. intelligence operative. But, there must have been a deliberate decision to do so. If a CIA operative's name is disclosed amid a cache of documents, it is difficult to say that someone made a specific decision to unmask that operative. In addition, the law's constitutionality is highly suspect.

The First Amendment reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress made the CIA law abridging speech and press after Philip Agee, a former CIA employee, wrote a book that exposed a CIA officer's name. That officer was murdered subsequent to publication and it was assumed that Agee's book was the primary cause, though a moment's thought about the subtleties and chicaneries of the intelligence underworld should cast at least some doubt on that assumption.

Assange's superseding indictment (the first one laughably claimed he was a terrorist) cites federal statute 18:793 of the Espionage Act, which begins, "(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation..."

What exactly does "intent or reason to believe" that the information will bring "injury" to the United States or give "advantage" to a foreign nation mean? In the case of a spy passing information to an enemy government during wartime, there is little ambiguity. It's hard to say the same about a citizen journalist or public-spirited activist.

Even if "injury" occurred, how can one possibly assume that a citizen-journalist intended to harm anyone, even if it is said after the fact that some people were killed as a result of publication? A spy intends injury. Can that easily be said of a public-spirited publisher? The whole point of WikiLeaks was to restore democracy by letting the common people see what their governments do in the dark. Now, you may say that that is a foolish and irrational idea, but having a silly idea does not make a person evil. (In fact, the treatment of Assange can be fairly compared to the diabolical suppressions of free speech during the Dark Ages. Assange is the real witch hunt victim.)

In any event, in a political situation, "injury" and "advantage" tend to be in the minds of the beholders. Many citizens of the United States believe that their republic was strengthened by the WikiLeaks revelations. Just because public officials hold the opposite opinion does not make their opinion intrinsically valid. What nations gained advantages that could be easily defined and measured as a result of the disclosures? In fact, the diplomatic cable disclosures helped fuel the Arab Spring, kindling the hopes of many for democracy of the sort enjoyed in America and Britain.

The disclosure that got the most attention was that the United States military had suppressed evidence of an atrocity carried out in the heat of combat in Iraq. The journalist Seymour Hersh was hailed when he exposed the My Lai massacre by going onto U.S. military bases in order to begin collecting information that surely would injure the reputation of the United States during another undeclared war and that would benefit the Communists by bolstering their propaganda. Yet no one thought to use the Espionage Act against him. For one thing, injuring the reputation of the government was not sufficient reason to prosecute.

From the title of the video published by WikiLeaks, Collateral Murder, I have an opinion that Assange, like many a person who has never been in combat, did not comprehend the stress that men and women experience in a firefight. I felt that he had not been sufficiently compassionate toward the helicopter crew members, who doubtless suffered great remorse for many years after the event.

Yet, I did not blame Assange. His was a typical civilian response. And I certainly believed that the public had benefited from seeing what happens when presidents order the beginning of hostilities as if their own lives don't depend on it -- which they don't.

The most important point is that the Espionage Act statute leaves it to public officials to decide when a disclosure of the truth "injures" the United States. Further, the act permits prosecutors to read the minds of journalists and activists to discern whether they intended such injury. And, there is absolutely no doubt that the act, especially when applied to journalists and citizens who are not clearly working as enemy spies, is in direct collision with the First Amendment, which takes precedence. In spite of Mike Pompeo's bombastic claims, federal prosecutors have never alleged that Assange is a witting spy for the Kremlin or any other government.

So there is no basis for a U.S. prosecution -- which is why Chelsea Manning is being held by federal prosecutors in a federal pen. The feds are trying to force her to talk: to turn against Assange and say something incriminating. Except for a brief period of release, Manning has been held for about a year, a draconian maneuver that discloses the desperation of prosecutors to turn Manning so that they can get a real criminal case against Assange. If prosecutors were confident of their current case, they would almost certainly have freed Manning months ago.

Prosecution claims that Assange is disqualified from First Amendment protection because he is not a U.S. citizen are disingenuous. The amendment says "no law" can abridge free speech and press. It says nothing about citizenship. By the prosecution's reasoning, it would be fair to say that, because Assange is not a U.S. citizen, the Espionage Act does not apply to him.

Time to end the witch hunts and restore democracy both in Britain and America.

Amnesty campaigns for Assange's freedom

Loose him and let him go!
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/02/usuk-drop-charges-and-halt-extradition-of-julian-assange/

Hard-to-find document on press curbs (see below italic matter)

---

Euro-blast heard round the world in support of Assange

The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly has strongly chastised Britain and the United States for joining the sad list of governments that repress freedom of press through harsh measures.

The accused countries have ignored the statement, as has much of the media in those countries. Britain has left the European Union and it is questionable whether the Assembly's criticism will have much effect, though it may certainly affect international relations for both countries. For example, neither country is in much of a position to criticize Russia and China for their dreadful record of stifling press whistleblowers.

The following document required a diligent search of two major search engines in order to locate it. That is, it wasn't readily available to the interested public.

As part of a bruising partisan political fight, the U.S. envoy to the Council of Europe was relieved of his post Friday by President Trump who had lost confidence in him after his testimony during the House intelligence panel's "impeachment" process.

Also transferred to other duties were another witness, security aide Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, and his twin brother, security aide Lt. Col. Oleg Vindman. The Pentagon said it had jobs to which to post the two Army officers.

The shakeup puts a crimp in any feedback to the United States on risks of pursuing a get-Assange program in line with the attack launched by Mike Pompeo, who was then CIA chief and is now secretary of state.

Trump backers in the Senate worked hard to avoid a slim majority vote to convict, which would have meant acquittal but seen as a de facto vote of censure that could have wrecked Trump's reelection bid.  The abusive proceedings used against Trump may be contrasted with the attack on freedom of press being waged in the Assange matter. Assange has suffered far more for doing far less.

For example, most of the corporate media have agreed to a Deep State gag order on the naming of two men who may have been helpful hostile witnesses in Trump's defense. The mostly pro-Trump Fox News would not print a question in which Rand Paul, R-Ky, on the Senate floor named security officials Eric Chiaramella and Sean Misko, without making any reference to the idea that Chiaramella was the "whistleblower" whose complaint was used to justify the impeachment inquiry.

Granted, the indictment of Assange initially on a bogus terrorism charge and later on equally bogus spy charges may have had support from Justice Department Deep Staters eager to pay back Assange for spoiling their game. And Trump has been put in the position of being accused of Russia collusion if he lifts a finger to correct this outrageous abuse of power, which in some sense is virtually the use of a bill of attainder meant to punish one person for having the audacity to defy The Beast, exactly the grudge the Deep State holds against Trump.

---

Resolution 2317 (2020) 1 Provisional version

Threats to media freedom and journalists’ security in Europe

Parliamentary Assembly

1. Without the right to freedom of expression, and free, independent and pluralistic media, there is no true democracy. The Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly are firmly committed to strengthening media freedom in all its aspects, including the right of access to information, the protection of sources, the protection against searches of professional workplaces and private domiciles and the seizure of materials, the safeguard of editorial independence and of the ability to investigate, criticise and contribute to public debate without fear of pressure or interference. The safety of journalists and other media actors is a fundamental component of this freedom.

2. Under the European Convention on Human Rights – in particular, but not only, its Article 10 – member States have a positive obligation to establish a sound legal framework for journalists and other media actors to work safely. However, threats, harassment, legal and administrative restrictions and undue political and economic pressure are widespread. Worse still, in some countries, journalists who investigate affairs involving corruption or abuse of power, or who merely voice criticism of political leaders and governments in power, are physically attacked, arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured or even murdered. In this respect, the Assembly also refers to its Resolution 2293 (2019) “Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination and the rule of law in Malta and beyond: ensuring that the whole truth emerges”.

3. According to the information published by the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists (the Platform), from 2015 to 25 November 2019, 26 journalists have been killed, including 22 cases where there has been impunity, and 109 journalists are currently in detention; 638 serious press freedom violations have been perpetrated in 39 countries. Threats on media freedom and the safety of journalists have become so numerous, repeated and serious that they are jeopardising not only citizens’ right to be properly informed but also the stability and smooth functioning of our democratic societies.

4. The Council of Europe bodies, including the Parliamentary Assembly, must not only keep on advocating the development in all European countries and beyond of a safe environment for journalists and other media actors, but they must make use of all their leverage to prompt member States to remedy quickly and effectively any threats to media freedom, urging and supporting the reforms required to this aim.

5. Therefore, the Assembly calls on member States to protect more effectively the safety of journalists and media freedom. In this connection, they must:

5.1. fully implement Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors;

5.2. carry out effective, independent and prompt investigations into any crimes against journalists, such as killings, attacks or ill-treatment, and bring to justice authors, instigators, perpetrators and accomplices who are responsible under the law, ensuring that there is no impunity for attacks against journalists; 1. Assembly debate on 28 January 2020 (4th Sitting) (see Doc. 15021, report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, rapporteur: Lord George Foulkes). Text adopted by the Assembly on 28 January 2020 (4th Sitting). See also Recommendation 2168 (2020). http://assembly.coe.int F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | assembly.coe.int

5.3. set up national mechanisms consistent with the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, ensuring that such mechanisms are designed and implemented under strong political and operational leadership, with proper inter-agency co-ordination and in genuine partnership with civil society, notably journalists’ associations and trade unions, and media freedom watchdog organisations;

5.4. fight on-line harassment of journalists, particularly female journalists and journalists belonging to minorities, and enhance the protection of investigative journalists and whistleblowers;

5.5. support the establishment of early-warning and rapid-response mechanisms, such as hotlines or emergency contact points, to ensure that journalists have immediate access to protection whenever they are threatened;

5.6. pay particular attention to the rising number of attacks on journalists and media outlets from groups of extremists and criminal organisations, and take appropriate preventive measures when journalists’ life or safety is exposed to a real and immediate risk;

5.7. enhance the co-operation and exchange of information, expertise and best practices with other States whenever crimes against journalists involve cross-border or online dimensions;

5.8. back up laws protecting journalists with effective law enforcement apparatus and redress mechanisms for victims and their families;

5.9. avoid arrest and extradition of journalists in exile to their countries of origin where they risk punishment and persecution.

6. The Assembly calls on member States to create an enabling and favourable media environment and review to this end their legislation, seeking to prevent any misuse of different laws or provisions which may impact on media freedom – such as those on defamation, anti-terrorism, national security, public order, hate speech, blasphemy or memory laws – which are too often applied to intimidate and silence journalists. In this connection, they must, in particular:

6.1. propose no penal sanctions for a media offence – especially prison sentences, closure of media outlets or blocking of websites and social media platforms – except in cases where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, for instance in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence or to terrorism; ensure that these sanctions are not applied in a discriminatory or arbitrary way against journalists;

6.2. recognise, and ensure respect of, the right of journalists to protect their sources, and develop an appropriate normative, judicial and institutional framework to protect whistleblowers and whistleblowing facilitators, in line with Assembly Resolution 2300 (2019) “Improving the protection of whistleblowers all over Europe”; in this respect, consider that the detention and criminal prosecution of Mr Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, and join the recommendation of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment who declared, on 1 November 2019, that Mr Assange's extradition to the United States must be barred and that he must be promptly released;

6.3. facilitate journalists’ work in specific difficult contexts, such as in conflict zones or in public rallies;

6.4. firmly condemn police violence against journalists and establish deterrent sanctions in this respect;

6.5. develop specific training programmes for law-enforcement bodies and officials who are responsible for fulfilling State obligations concerning the protection of journalists;

6.6. avoid any misuse of administrative measures, such as registration or accreditation, and of tax schemes to harass journalists or apply pressure to them;

6.7. develop constructive, nondiscriminatory mechanisms of dialogue with media and journalists standing or ad hoc committees, bringing together politicians, judges, public prosecutors, police officers, journalists and editors, to discuss problems concerning journalists’ security, and look for solutions in a collaborative framework, also paying specific attention to the need to ensure effective protection for investigative journalists, as well as to the higher vulnerability of women journalists and the particular vulnerability of freelancers. Resolution 2317 (2020) 2

7. The Assembly condemns the rise of aggressive behaviour and violent verbal attacks by political figures and representatives of the authorities against journalists and calls on all political leaders to combat this phenomenon.

8. The Assembly notes with concern that public service media have been under increasing pressure in most parts of Europe, suffering from funding cuts and new laws or regulations which limit their independence or reduce their remits. The Assembly reaffirms and commends the crucial role that public service media play in a democratic society and it calls again on member States to ensure their adequate and sustainable funding, editorial independence and institutional autonomy. 9. While the above-mentioned problems or at least some of them are observed in various proportions in most countries, the Assembly has to note that, concerning media freedom and safety of journalists, the situation in some member States is particularly worrying. In this context, the Assembly specifically calls on:

9.1. Azerbaijan to radically modify the actual hostile environment which seriously curtails media freedom and, in particular:

9.1.1. ban the abuse of penal legislation to silence independent journalists, who are today systematically threatened with unfounded criminal charges, trumped-up evidence and unjustified imprisonment;

9.1.2. review urgently all cases of imprisoned journalists and media professionals, and free all those who are detained without any serious and substantiated evidence of criminal activities;

9.1.3. refrain from the adoption of restrictive administrative measures, such as a travel ban on journalists, which limit their freedom to properly inform the public;

9.1.4. end legal harassment of independent news agencies, for example through false accusations of tax-evasion or under-declaring profits;

9.1.5. stop systematically blocking access to independent news websites;

9.1.6. stop any administrative and political pressure against the only independent news agency Turan and against the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS);

9.2. Hungary to immediately address the grave problem of media pluralism; the politically and economically biased licensing media conglomerate concentrating 78% of the Hungarian media closely associated with the ruling party is totally incompatible with freedom of expression and information;

9.3. Malta to:

9.3.1. urgently end the prevailing climate of impunity and implement Assembly Resolution 2293 (2019). In this connection, the Assembly welcomes the recent announcement of revised terms of reference and composition of a public independent inquiry into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, following the concerns set out in the Declaration of the PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights;

9.3.2. as recommended by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, repeal any laws allowing the posthumous pursuit of defamation cases, targeting journalists, against their heirs. It is unacceptable that over 30 posthumous civil defamation proceedings against Daphne Caruana Galizia’s family are still under way;

9.4. the Russian Federation – which holds the dubious record number of alerts on serious attacks against, and harassment and intimidation of, journalists – to immediately:

9.4.1. address the problem of violence against journalists, including murders, physical attacks and threats, arrests, imprisonment, on-line harassment; take remedial action to impede such crimes and put an end to the climate of impunity that encourages further attacks; those who carried out or ordered the crimes must be brought to justice;

9.4.2. prevent police violence against journalists, as has happened during July-August 2019 demonstrations in Moscow; apply deterrent sanctions against policemen who are responsible for such unacceptable misuse of power;

9.4.3. stop intimidation of journalists by way of arrests and imprisonment under forged accusations of drug dealing or other, in order to prevent journalistic investigations of corruption and misuse of power as in the case of the journalist Ivan Golunov; Resolution 2317 (2020) 3

9.4.4. cease abusing anti-terrorism laws to apply censorship to the media, as in the case of the journalist Svetlana Prokopyeva, who was charged with “publicly justifying terrorism” and could face up to seven years in prison, for expressing on-air her opinion about a teenage suicide;

9.4.5. review the terms of reference of the Russian federal media regulator, Roskomnadzor, to limit its excessive power in the monitoring and censorship of the media, including on-line media; the blocking of independent media outlets without any warning or explanation, as recently happened to the Fergana news website, is an action amounting to censorship that is incompatible with the freedom of the media;

9.4.6. modify the recent legislation on false news and disrespect for the state, the authorities and society, and bring it into line with the Council of Europe standards; general prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, including “false news” or “non-objective information”, are incompatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and must be abolished; they have a chilling effect of self-censorship on journalists and other media professionals and allow the government to silence any criticism against the ruling power, putting journalists and bloggers who oppose it in jail, and to determine the makeup of the media landscape by forcing media outlets to remove content identified by the authorities as “socially dangerous” or “disrespectful” or having their websites blocked;

9.4.7. stop discriminating against the main organisations defending the media by declaring them “foreign agents”; repeal the new bill adopted by the State Duma which extends the status of “foreign agents” to freelance journalists and bloggers receiving grants, salaries, or payment for specific pieces of work from any foreign source: marking with the “foreign agent” label the information published by independent journalists and bloggers will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and of the media;

9.5. Turkey – the country which has the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the Council of Europe region – to immediately: 9.5.1. end abusing the penal code and anti-terrorism laws to silence media outlets and journalists: the latter are placed in arbitrary pre-trial arrest and detention, and are held for months, sometimes for years, before their cases come to court; the European Court of Human Rights has consistently condemned such detentions as a real and effective constraint on freedom of expression that leads to self-censorship;

9.5.2. in line with Assembly Resolution 2121 (2016), repeal Article 299 (Insulting the President of the Republic), repeal or amend Article 301 (Degrading the Turkish Nation, the State of the Turkish Republic, the Organs and Institutions of the State) and ensure a strict interpretation of Article 216 (incitement to violence, armed resistance or uprising) and Article 314 (Membership of an Armed Organisation) from its penal code which, according to the Venice Commission, contains excessive sanctions and is too widely applied against freedom of expression and information; 9.5.3. ensure that the over 150 media outlets which were closed and the about 10 000 media employees which were dismissed after the failed coup in 2016 have access to effective domestic remedies and, if the case arises, obtain adequate compensation;

9.5.4. eliminate from the recently adopted legislation all provisions retained from the abolished emergency decrees that make it possible to apply radical measures against the media;

9.5.5. ensure that the newly introduced regulation empowering the Radio and Television Supreme Council to supervise internet media strictly abides by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights;

9.5.6. continue the reforms for revising the Internet Act in order to avoid unnecessary and unjustified blocking of access to internet resources on the grounds of “national security”;

9.5.7. in the framework of the announced Judicial Reform Strategy, focus on the protection of journalists’ safety and ensure, in that context, that meaningful steps be taken to expand freedom of expression and of the media and guarantee judicial independence, in line with Council of Europe standards. Resolution 2317 (2020) 4

10. The Assembly welcomes the constructive attitude that a number of member States have shown so far with regard to the Platform and the alerts published therein. As examples: France and Ukraine have set up response mechanisms to co-ordinate adequate follow-up to the alerts seeking to solve them. In the Netherlands, the public prosecution, the police authorities and media outlets concluded an agreement to adopt preventive measures and co-ordinate responses to instance of violence. Encouraging progress could be acknowledged in North Macedonia, where pressure and prosecutions against journalists have been significantly reduced.

11. With the hope that all member States will recognise the added value that the Platform represents and the importance of the contribution that its partners offer to the Council of Europe, the Assembly calls on member States to:

11.1. engage in an unreserved support and effective co-operation with the Platform, also contributing financially to its operation;

11.2. establish appropriate response mechanisms and provide substantive responses to the alerts posted in the Platform, looking for prompt remedial actions and adopting targeted measures to avoid repetitive cases;

11.3. consider how other member States are enhancing their collaboration with the partners of the Platform, seeking to follow positive examples and good practices;

11.4. support the development of other similar transnational technical platforms on which media professionals would be able to signal any threats to their security.

12. Finally, the Assembly calls on national parliaments to ensure that governments act in full respect of the Council of Europe standards concerning the right to freedom of expression, including media freedom and the safety of journalists. National parliaments must be the guardians of this right and ensure full engagement of the State apparatus at all levels: political, legislative, judicial, law enforcement and educational. In this connection, national parliaments should take more account of the Council of Europe work, and particularly bring the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers, and the Assembly’s reports and resolutions, to the attention of their relevant committees, and build on these texts when drafting legislation relevant for media freedom and the safety of journalists. Resolution 2317 (2020) 5

A reminder:UN prober found Assange rape case was fraudulent

A reminder:
UN prober found Assange rape case was fraudulent

---

Key points in the Assange saga:

@ Assange rape case was a fraud

@ U.S. pressured Swedes to prosecute Assange in rape case

@ CIA spied on Assange's attorney-client conversations prior
  to U.S. indictment

@ Assange is being held in a British prison solely based 
  on U.S. demands, though he has served his sentence for
  availing himself of refugee status in the Ecuadoran embassy

---

Still worth reading:

---

By Nils Melzer,
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
On the occasion of the International Day in Support of Torture Victims, 26 June 2019

---

I know, you may think I am deluded. How could life in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard ever amount to torture? That’s exactly what I thought, too, when Assange first appealed to my office for protection. Like most of the public, I had been subconsciously poisoned by the relentless smear campaign, which had been disseminated over the years. So it took a second knock on my door to get my reluctant attention. But once I looked into the facts of this case, what I found filled me with repulsion and disbelief.

Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the United States had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, Swedish prosecution informed the tabloid press that he was suspected of having raped two women. Strangely, however, the women themselves never claimed to have been raped, nor did they intend to report a criminal offence. Go figure.

Moreover, the forensic examination of a condom submitted as evidence, supposedly worn and torn during intercourse with Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure again. One woman even texted that she only wanted Assange to take an HIV test, but that the police were “keen on getting their hands on him”. Go figure, once more. Ever since, both Sweden and Britain have done everything to prevent Assange from confronting these allegations without simultaneously having to expose himself to U.S. extradition and, thus, to a show-trial followed by life in jail. His last refuge had been the Ecuadorian Embassy.

All right, I thought, but surely Assange must be a hacker! But what I found is that all his disclosures had been freely leaked to him, and that no one accuses him of having hacked a single computer. In fact, the only arguable hacking-charge against him relates to his alleged unsuccessful attempt to help breaking a password which, had it been successful, might have helped his source to cover her tracks. In short: a rather isolated, speculative, and inconsequential chain of events; a bit like trying to prosecute a driver who unsuccessfully attempted to exceed the speed-limit, but failed because their car was too weak.

Well then, I thought, at least we know for sure that Assange is a Russian spy, has interfered with U.S. elections, and negligently caused people’s deaths! But all I found is that he consistently published true information of inherent public interest without any breach of trust, duty or allegiance. Yes, he exposed war crimes, corruption and abuse, but let’s not confuse national security with governmental impunity. Yes, the facts he disclosed empowered U.S. voters to take more informed decisions, but isn’t that simply democracy? Yes, there are ethical discussions to be had regarding the legitimacy of unredacted disclosures. But if actual harm had really been caused, how come neither Assange nor Wikileaks ever faced related criminal charges or civil lawsuits for just compensation?

But surely, I found myself pleading, Assange must be a selfish narcissist, skateboarding through the Ecuadorian Embassy and smearing feces on the walls? Well, all I heard from Embassy staff is that the inevitable inconveniences of his accommodation at their offices were handled with mutual respect and consideration. This changed only after the election of President Moreno, when they were suddenly instructed to find smears against Assange and, when they didn’t, they were soon replaced. The President even took it upon himself to bless the world with his gossip, and to personally strip Assange of his asylum and citizenship without any due process of law.

In the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide. And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.

Very well, you may say, but what does slander have to do with torture? Well, this is a slippery slope. What may look like mere «mudslinging» in public debate, quickly becomes “mobbing” when used against the defenseless, and even “persecution” once the State is involved. Now just add purposefulness and severe suffering, and what you get is full-fledged psychological torture.

Yes, living in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a sweet deal when you believe the rest of the lies. But when no one remembers the reason for the hate you endure, when no one even wants to hear the truth, when neither the courts nor the media hold the powerful to account, then your refuge really is but a rubber boat in a shark-pool, and neither your cat nor your skateboard will save your life.

Even so, you may say, why spend so much breath on Assange, when countless others are tortured worldwide? Because this is not only about protecting Assange, but about preventing a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy. For once telling the truth has become a crime, while the powerful enjoy impunity, it will be too late to correct the course. We will have surrendered our voice to censorship and our fate to unrestrained tyranny.

This Op-Ed has been offered for publication to the Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek.

None responded positively.