Assange can't have violated secrecy laws
-- because the underlying laws don't exist
Julian Assange's personality is irrelevant. The issue is that he did nothing wrong.
The United States has no Official Secrets Act. And there is a multitude of problems in applying the 1917 Espionage Act to him, the biggest of which is freedom of speech and press inside and outside America.
It is very important that Assange is being charged with violating classification regulations imposed by the Executive Branch, even though these rubrics are not legally mandated, Only nuclear secrets were given a congressional imprimatur as legally defined.
The authority for all other classification derives from the President, and applies to people under the President's sway -- that is, employees of the Executive Branch and government contractors, all of whom sign secrecy agreements.
Not only is he not bound by the secrecy agreement, but the Espionage Act is being applied to "violations" that have only a quasi-legal basis. It's true that everyone is used to them and that numerous spies have been imprisoned on account of them. But custom does not make something correct.
In any case, it is obvious that Mike Pompeo, when head of the CIA, was eager to exact revenge against Assange for publishing a file containing alleged CIA technical secrets. He blasted WikiLeaks as a Russian spy front. Britain's MI5 was also said to have been affronted, as the file had been shared with it, giving the Tories a pretext to continue the witch hunt against Assange.
This is all Deep Swamp bilge. Notice that the file was classified "secret," which in CIA-land is considered a garbage classification. A million or so people are cleared to see "secret" information. "Top secret" and special compartmentalized classifications are the only thing meaningful to the security crowd.
The technical information disclosed various gimmicks for backdoor entry into popular communications devices as well as a TV set that could be used to spy on you. All this had been mentioned in the media before being discussed in that file.
Every intelligence agency on the planet would have assumed that the CIA was looking into such gimmickry. So the "secret" stamp only made sure that the non-technical public was kept unaware of such possibilities. Hence, WikiLeaks was fulfilling the responsibility of the press to alert the public to things the government prefers that the voters not know.
Also, one has to wonder whether Assange was set up. That is, did the CIA leak these not-very-important "secrets" in hopes that he would publish them, which would in turn justify an "everybody against Assange" push?
Though he has not been charged in the CIA case, the charges of publishing U.S. secrets during the Obama years ring hollow. And what was so terrible? We saw a case in which a helicopter gun crew killed a group of journalists. Why shouldn't the public know about that? And the diplomatic papers that were published were so low-level that they were classified "confidential, no foreign." Those papers set off political firestorms, which included giving courage and impetus to the "Arab Spring" uprisings around the Mediterranean. So again, WikiLeaks contributed to the welfare of the average man and woman, whatever their pompous governments favored.
The idea that Assange could spend many years in a U.S. prison is an outrage against liberty everywhere -- especially here in the land of the free.
In any case, it seems unlikely that Assange can get a fair trial because of the CIA's spying on him and his lawyers while he was an asylum guest at the Ecuador embassy in London (see previous post).
Assange's French legal adviser believes that the recording of his conversations with Assange make a fair trial unlikely.
The adviser, Juan Branco, told a World Socialist reporter:
He said,
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/16/bran-j16.html
Please visit our Support Assange blog
https://supportassange.blogspot.com/2020/01/assange-cant-have-violated-secrecy-laws.html
The United States has no Official Secrets Act. And there is a multitude of problems in applying the 1917 Espionage Act to him, the biggest of which is freedom of speech and press inside and outside America.
It is very important that Assange is being charged with violating classification regulations imposed by the Executive Branch, even though these rubrics are not legally mandated, Only nuclear secrets were given a congressional imprimatur as legally defined.
The authority for all other classification derives from the President, and applies to people under the President's sway -- that is, employees of the Executive Branch and government contractors, all of whom sign secrecy agreements.
Assange never signed a secrecy agreement.
Not only is he not bound by the secrecy agreement, but the Espionage Act is being applied to "violations" that have only a quasi-legal basis. It's true that everyone is used to them and that numerous spies have been imprisoned on account of them. But custom does not make something correct.
How can a person be tried for violating a secrecy classification that has only a quasi-legal basis?
In any case, it is obvious that Mike Pompeo, when head of the CIA, was eager to exact revenge against Assange for publishing a file containing alleged CIA technical secrets. He blasted WikiLeaks as a Russian spy front. Britain's MI5 was also said to have been affronted, as the file had been shared with it, giving the Tories a pretext to continue the witch hunt against Assange.
This is all Deep Swamp bilge. Notice that the file was classified "secret," which in CIA-land is considered a garbage classification. A million or so people are cleared to see "secret" information. "Top secret" and special compartmentalized classifications are the only thing meaningful to the security crowd.
The technical information disclosed various gimmicks for backdoor entry into popular communications devices as well as a TV set that could be used to spy on you. All this had been mentioned in the media before being discussed in that file.
Every intelligence agency on the planet would have assumed that the CIA was looking into such gimmickry. So the "secret" stamp only made sure that the non-technical public was kept unaware of such possibilities. Hence, WikiLeaks was fulfilling the responsibility of the press to alert the public to things the government prefers that the voters not know.
Also, one has to wonder whether Assange was set up. That is, did the CIA leak these not-very-important "secrets" in hopes that he would publish them, which would in turn justify an "everybody against Assange" push?
Though he has not been charged in the CIA case, the charges of publishing U.S. secrets during the Obama years ring hollow. And what was so terrible? We saw a case in which a helicopter gun crew killed a group of journalists. Why shouldn't the public know about that? And the diplomatic papers that were published were so low-level that they were classified "confidential, no foreign." Those papers set off political firestorms, which included giving courage and impetus to the "Arab Spring" uprisings around the Mediterranean. So again, WikiLeaks contributed to the welfare of the average man and woman, whatever their pompous governments favored.
The idea that Assange could spend many years in a U.S. prison is an outrage against liberty everywhere -- especially here in the land of the free.
In any case, it seems unlikely that Assange can get a fair trial because of the CIA's spying on him and his lawyers while he was an asylum guest at the Ecuador embassy in London (see previous post).
Assange's French legal adviser believes that the recording of his conversations with Assange make a fair trial unlikely.
The adviser, Juan Branco, told a World Socialist reporter:
We believe this is a crucial element in our battle to avoid Julian Assange’s extradition. The gross violation of the principles of a fair trial, including the right to a fair defense, are epitomized in this episode.Branco said that the secret taping by UC Global on behalf of the CIA violated the legal rights of Assange's defense team.
The lack of secrecy of his exchanges with his lawyers was not only the fruit of covert operations: the dispositives were probably also used to collect evidence that could be used in trial, i.e., that could be legalized. In these conditions, in which the material basis of an indictment is based on illegal spying operations that violate the basic rights of the defense, it seems to us extremely difficult to argue that an extradition to the U.S. would not violate the basic requisites that apply in these circumstances.
He said,
The Bar of Paris and I are going to file a complaint in France over the violation of the rights of the defense, professional secrets and the violation of my privacy. What we are trying to do is to fight against the normalization of practices that are devastating the privacy not only of our client, but more broadly of millions of citizens. In our case, the situation was particularly intense, with a few of us being the subject of tailing operations, photo operations, burglaries and so forth.Socialist report on the attack on Assange's defense rights
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/16/bran-j16.html
Please visit our Support Assange blog
https://supportassange.blogspot.com/2020/01/assange-cant-have-violated-secrecy-laws.html
No comments:
Post a Comment