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.

Speaking of witch hunts

Speaking of witch hunts

Paul to Trump:
Be my guest at trial

Senator urging a deal on Assange
as press firestorm rages over
crackdown on cyber-journalism

Top Dem candidates rip Trump and blast cyber-journalism attacks

---

Sanders, Warren denouncing cyber-squeeze against Assange, Greenwald

---

Pompeo, Clinton both notorious for Russia smears tarring those journalists they don't like

---

Rand Paul says President Trump is welcome to attend the Senate trial of Trump's impeachment charges as his personal guest.

The Kentucky Republican, while differing from Trump on a number of policy issues, regards the impeachment articles as an irresponsible partisan maneuver. He said most Americans -- presumably including senators -- had already made up their minds as to impeachment articles. He scoffed at the articles, comparing the Democrats' indignance  with their glacial silence when Obama did similar things.

In the meantime, Paul has urged a compromise on the Assange case that would permit the Trump administration and Congress a means of ending the free press crisis, one that is liable to come to a head during the heat of the presidential race. Assange is being held in a maximum security British prison on ground that he poses a flight risk as the United States demands his extradition to face charges under the Espionage Act of 1917, along with cyber-law technicalities, that have never before been used against people publicly disseminating secrets who have not signed secrecy agreements.

---

Rand Paul's artful deal on Assange
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/16/rand-paul-floats-immunity-julian-assange-senators-/

---

Under the artful deal, all U.S. charges against Assange would be dropped in return for his testimony before Congress under immunity granted by the Justice Department and Congress. Trump came under pressure from Mike Pompeo, at the time CIA chief, who publicly excoriated Assange and WikiLeaks as Russian tools after WikiLeaks published some CIA documents that disclosed some ideas for ways the government could rig electronic devices so as to be able to spy on those nearby.

However, the pretext used by the Justice Department in its case was WikiLeaks' publication of low-security material, including a video in which a U.S. helicopter crew kills a group of journalists in Iraq and papers that disclosed the confidential opinions of U.S. diplomats about foreign politicians.  Since that time, Assange has been the target of a witch hunt by the Deep Swamp, including trivial Swedish sex charges that were dropped but then reinstated under U.S. pressure.

A storm of criticism is arising worldwide about the Assange case -- a storm that has been fueled by Brazilian charges against Gleen Greenwald by a vengeful president, angered that crooked trial-rigging was exposed by Greenwald's publication of private messages. Like Assange, Greenwald was accused of violating cyber-security laws. Among those denouncing the Assange indictment are Rand Paul's father, Ron Paul, now retired as a Republican congressman from Texas. Both Pauls are vigorous defenders of individual liberties against government intrusion and are both known as libertarians.

Among the press groups registering dismay at what they see as Trumpian  tactics are:

Freedom of the Press Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, Access Now, Agência Pública, American Civil Liberties Union, ARTICLE 19, Brazil and South America, Asociación por los Derechos Civiles, Association for Progressive Communications (APC).

Brave New Films, Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (Abraji), CODEPINK, Columbia Journalism Review Committee to Protect Journalists, Cooperativa Tierra Común, Demand Progress, Derechos Digitales, Doc Society, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ExposeFacts, Fundación Acceso (Costa Rica), Fundación Ciudadania Inteligente, Fundación Datos Protegidos (Chile), Fundación Karisma Fundación Huaira (Ecuador), Fundación Vía Libre, Human Rights Watch.

IFEX IFEX-ALC IPANDETEC, Centroamérica Instituto, Vladimir Herzog International Press Institute, Intervozes National Federation of Brazilian Journalists (FENAJ), Newscoop, Pen International, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Roots Action, Sursiendo, CCD, TEDIC, Ubunteam, Community Usuarios Digitales, World Association of News Publishers, Witness.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation condemned the use of cybercrime laws as a means of stifling investigative reporting, arguing that "constitutional protection" is necessary.

EFF said,

Around the world, cybercrime laws are notoriously hazy.  This is in part because it’s challenging to write good cybercrime laws: technology evolves quickly, our language for describing certain digital actions may be imprecise, and lawmakers may not always imagine how laws will later be interpreted.

And while the laws are hazy, the penalties are often severe, which makes them a dangerously big stick in the hands of prosecutors.  Prosecutors can and do take advantage of this disconnection, abusing laws designed to target criminals who break into computers for extortion or theft to prosecute those engaged in harmless activities, or research—or, in this case, journalists communicating with their sources.

Assange's source, Chelsea Manning, is being held in a federal prison for refusing to tell a grand jury what she knows about how data was transferred to Assange -- which implies that the federal case against Assange is insecure. Manning was pardoned by President Barack Obama after seven years in a military prison for transferring the data to Assange.

Sanders has blistered Trump's Justice Department for making itself the arbiter over who is a reporter and who is not. “Let me be clear: it is a disturbing attack on the First Amendment for the Trump administration to decide who is or is not a reporter for the purposes of a criminal prosecution,” Sanders tweeted. “Donald Trump must obey the Constitution, which protects the publication of news about our government.”

The Sanders campaign also spoke out against the Greenwald charges. Sanders' campaign co-chairperson, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said he is crafting legislation to protect journalists for being prosecuted over their work. Presumably he means U.S. journalists, such as Greenwald, living overseas.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.,  has chastised Trump for exploiting the Assange case as a "pretext to wage war on the First Amendment and go after the free press who hold the powerful accountable everyday.” She called on Brazil to drop cybercrime charges against Greenwald.

Warren however has, in carefully worded statements, appeared to stick with the Clinton line that demands that Assange be punished for hurting Clinton's campaign. “Assange is a bad actor who has harmed U.S. national security — and he should be held accountable,” Warren has said.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Or., also rebuked the Trump team on press freedom. “This is not about Julian Assange,” Wyden said. “This is about the use of the Espionage Act to charge a recipient and publisher of classified information. I am extremely concerned about the precedent this may set and potential dangers to the work of journalists and the First Amendment.”

Wyden was also very critical of the Obama administration for its secret domestic surveillance program exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The following information comes primarily from The Intercept:

Data included in those documents were reported by outlets including The New York Times and The Guardian; the Obama administration had always been reluctant to indict Assange due to what it called “the New York Times problem.” There was no way to say that Assange’s action was criminal without also saying that much of what the Times and other mainstream outlets do is also against the law.

Indeed, the documents are still officially classified, meaning that anybody who discusses them, even in the context of Assange’s indictment, could themselves be accused of a crime, despite the First Amendment and the fact that the person had signed no secrecy agreement. Transparency advocates have said that the executive branch has been classifying far too much basic information — the soup of the day at the CIA’s cafeteria, for instance, could be classified.

Greenwald's media outlet, The Intercept, said of the Assange case:

If the government effectively criminalizes reporting on classified information, that gives the government the unilateral authority to determine what can and cannot be published, simply by deploying its opaque and unreviewable classification scheme.

Members of Congress have been decidedly mum on the latest indictment, given the disdain in Washington for whistleblowing in general and the WikiLeaks apparatus in particular, which Democrats blame for upending Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid. The Democrats however were very keen on the CIA officer who allegedly blew the whistle against Trump.

Assange critics have quibbled over characterizing him as a journalist, but press freedom advocates are alarmed at the Justice Department’s use of the Espionage Act to target someone who publishes leaked information, as opposed to targeting only the leaker. John Demers, assistant attorney general for national security, has said that “Assange is no journalist,” and that the department “takes seriously the role of journalists and our democracy and we support it.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists said irrespective of how the Justice Department may characterize Assange’s role, the indictment “could chill investigative reporting.”

By Demers' statement, the Trump Justice Department is assigning the government the right to determine who is a real journalist, which in effect means the Justice Department is able and willing to license journalists -- a concept that not so long ago was anathema to U.S. news professionals.

The CPJ North America coordinator, Alexandra Ellerbeck, called the Trump team's move a "reckless assault on the First Amendment that crosses a line no previous administration has been willing to cross, and threatens to criminalize the most basic practices of reporting.”

Reached for comment at the time by The Intercept, a spokesman for Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., head of the House Judiciary Committee, and now a chief House impeachment manager, said he had nothing on the Assange matter. Similarly, the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not respond to a request for comment.

---

Canadians imitate Pompeo, U.S. Dems with Russia smears
If you criticize the government, you must be a Russian asset, a Putin puppet.
https://shadowproof.com/2020/01/22/consortium-news-libel-notices-cse-global-news-canada-russia/

U.S. moves to void UN's free press proviso,saying Assange has no such right in America

If British court accepts bizarre theory, any UK journo
could face extradition for publishing U.S. secrets

The U.S. Justice Department is urging a British court to accept a theory that Julian Assange, not being a U.S. person, is not entitled to the Constitution's First Amendment protection of freedom of press, according to the editor of WikiLeaks.

The First Amendment says nothing about U.S. persons -- citizens or aliens residing in the United States -- versus non-U.S. persons. The Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." The Amendment says any abridgment of freedom of press is illegal.

U.S. lawyers of course avoided the obvious point that by abridging WikiLeaks' press freedom, the Justice Department also sets a precedent for abridging the press freedom of Americans who wish to read WikiLeaks. Press freedom is not only about freedom to publish. It is also about freedom to consume the product of the press.

The editor, Kristinn Hrafnsson, told Western Advocate that a new affidavit submitted by U.S. government lawyers this week for Assange's upcoming extradition trial takes the position that foreign nationals like Assange are not entitled to press protections under the First Amendment, meaning he is prosecutable for violating the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 which prohibits dissemination of state secrets. The Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone for publishing secrets, though many have been prosecuted for stealing secrets in order to pass them to a foreign power.

Hrafnsson revealed the development outside Assange's case management hearing at London's Westminster Magistrates Court Thursday, the Advocate said.

"On the one hand they have decided that they can go after journalists wherever they are residing in the world, they have universal jurisdiction, and demand extradition like they are doing by trying to get an Australian national from the UK for publishing that took place outside U.S. borders," he told the Advocate.

The United States was a force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948. The declaration's Article 19 specifies that press freedom is guaranteed regardless of borders.

The declaration says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

As the UN press freedom declaration is regarded as the international norm, the U.S. theory that only U.S. persons are assured of press freedom violates a standard of international law. The UK of course was also a promoter of the international press rights declaration.

Hence the U.S. argument is a prima facie admission that international law, to which the UK has acceded, must be waived on behalf of U.S. prosecutors. In other words, the U.S. prosecutors have presented proof that a standard of international law is to be voided in order to "get" one individual who has annoyed powerful politicians with his publications.

U.S. theory voids press freedom for Assange
https://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/6596140/assange-may-not-get-us-press-protection/?cs=12512

First Assange, now Greenwald:Freedom of the press under fire

First Assange, now Greenwald:
Freedom of the press under fire

U.S. leads the way against liberty
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/brazil-greenwald-assange.php

Assange can't have violated secrecy laws-- because the underlying laws don't exist

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.

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.

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.

Branco said that the secret taping by UC Global on behalf of the CIA violated the legal rights of Assange's defense team.

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

Assange's dad fears for ailing son's life

Assange's dad fears for ailing son's life

Urges Britain to adhere to asylum rules; favors united front protest

---

'Julian has reached a point where he may die'
—Assange’s father, John Shipton.

---

By JOHANNES STERN
World Socialist Web Site
5 October 2019

On Thursday the WSWS met John Shipton, Julian Assange’s father, in Berlin to talk about the condition of his son’s jailing in the maximum security Belmarsh Prison in London. The day before Shipton had given a press conference and addressed the weekly “Candles 4 Assange” rally in Berlin, to inform the public about his son’s illegal imprisonment and demand his freedom.

The interview with Shipton, a very warm and courageous human being, started with an interesting and contentious half-hour of discussion. He raised fundamental historical and theoretical issues like the viability of Marxism, socialism and a revolutionary perspective. However, he agreed ultimately that the

task at hand was working together to build a powerful, international campaign to prevent Assange’s rendition to the United States and secure his freedom.

---

This explains my position as a libertarian-leaning American. -- P.C.

---

Shipton, who had visited his son just before traveling to Berlin, described the gruesome situation Assange is facing in Belmarsh.

“Julian was sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for minor infringements in a maximum-security prison in solitary confinement for 22 to 23 hours a day. There is a limitation of visitations which is two social visits for two hours. So those two hours, you can imagine, are very, very precious things. The Belmarsh prison is quite a way out and the requirements of registration are complex. That is his day-to-day situation.”

Shipton explained that his son has basically no access to any information. “There are restrictions on access to the library, access to the gym and access to computers. So, in order to prepare for his case, he has no access to the library, no access to computers and no access to the internet. He has no access to information at all.”

Due to his deteriorating health—Shipton said his son has lost 15 kilos since his imprisonment in Belmarsh—Assange has been transferred to the hospital ward of the prison.

“There he is still in isolation 23 hours a day but now he can have three visits a week. This is some improvement but still it’s a Grade A maximum-security jail. And Julian is a Grade B prisoner. His health has been declining and has reached a point where he may die. This is a man who has done nothing. Julian is a journalist like you. He has made an immense contribution to world journalism. WikiLeaks has made immense contributions, unbeatable contributions.”

Among the most infamous information made available by WikiLeaks is the “Collateral Murder” video, which documented the deliberate killing of civilians and Reuters journalists in Baghdad.

We also spoke briefly about the hundreds of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables, exposing the conspiracies and criminal activity of US embassies and consulates around the world. I remarked that in 2011 the WikiLeaks revelations played a role in inspiring the masses in Tunisia and Egypt to rise up in revolution against the imperialist-backed dictatorships.

Shipton nodded: “There was also the exposure of Angela Merkel’s personal telephone being bugged by some American spy agency. This is a shocking thing and I hope that the German people will ensure that the rules between countries are obeyed in every way. Particularly the international conventions concerning asylum which in Julian’s case weren’t obeyed. It would be a great benefit to the people of the United Kingdom if the British government would obey these international conventions it has signed.”

Shipton denounced the fact that his son is being held in a maximum prison for supposedly having breached the Bail Act. “Julian cannot be charged for bail skipping because he is an asylee and every asylee falls under conventions which the UK has signed. Julian is a journalist.”

Shipton said that “every journalist has an interest that the truth of Julian’s situation being put before their editors every day," adding, "Newspapers should have a great interest in Assange because also their freedom to publish and to investigate will be constrained and is being constrained. I understand that the World Socialist Web Site is being reduced by over 40 percent in its traffic by Google and search engines. This is repression of free speech. It is up to us and up to newspapers and news organisations to ensure that Julian is free. It is about the freedom to publish.”

Asked about how much his son is aware of the support he is getting among workers and students internationally, Shipton replied, “He is aware of that support. And I will tell him about my experience here when I see him next time on October 8. I am surprised by the depth of the support in Germany on every level of society: from parliamentarians, to writers, painters and journalists. There is very, very strong support here.

“I think the answer to Julian’s difficulties comes from the general people of Europe binding together to ensure that conventions and laws are upheld and newspapers support Julian. I think the answer in Europe lies among the people insisting that the governments do something to bring back Julian’s freedom.”

At the end of the interview we talked briefly about Carl von Ossietzky, one of the most well-known anti-war journalists in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Similar to Assange, he was arrested in 1931 for exposing the illegal military build-up of the German army and national security secrets. He was released in 1932, but was subsequently rearrested by the Nazis, who tortured him, leading to his death in 1938.

“I can see the parallels,” John Shipton said, “but I am not entirely happy with it because like Gramsci [the Italian anti-fascist and Marxist] he came to a very bitter end. We have to make sure that this doesn’t happen again. This is our task. And I think we will win.”

Trump critic asks: Impeachment . . . or CIA coup?

Trump critic asks: Impeachment . . . or CIA coup?

CIA red-faced at disclosure it changed whistleblower rules to permit hearsay;
So now another 'more knowledgeable' spook is being pressured to save coup

---

Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman and libertarian activist, has challenged the Trump administration on various fronts, including the attempt to punish Julian Assange for publication of covert U.S. data.

---

By RON PAUL
Oct. 01, 2019

You don’t need to be a supporter of President Trump to be concerned about the efforts to remove him from office. Last week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced impeachment proceedings against the President over a phone call made to the President of Ukraine.

According to the White House record of the call, the President asked his Ukrainian counterpart to look into whether there is any evidence of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election and then mentioned that a lot of people were talking about how former U.S, Vice President Joe Biden stopped the prosecution of his son who was under investigation for corruption in Ukraine.

Democrats, who spent more than two years convinced that “Russiagate” would enable them to remove Trump from office only to have their hopes dashed by the Mueller Report, now believe they have their smoking gun in this phone call.

It this about politics? Yes. But there may be more to it than that.

It may appear that the Democratic Party, furious over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, is the driving force behind this ongoing attempt to remove Donald Trump from office, but at every turn we see the fingerprints of the CIA and its allies in the U.S. deep state.

In August 2016, a former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell, wrote an extraordinary article in the New York Times accusing Donald Trump of being an “agent of the Russian Federation.” Morell was clearly using his intelligence career as a way of bolstering his claim that Trump was a Russian spy -- after all, the CIA should know such a thing! But the claim was a lie.

Former CIA Director John Brennan accused President Trump of “treason” and of “being in the pocket of Putin” for meeting with the Russian president in Helsinki and accepting his word that Russia did not meddle in the U.S. election. To this day there has yet to be any evidence presented that the Russian government did interfere. Brennan openly called on “patriotic” Republicans to act against this “traitor.”

Brennan and his deep state counterparts, James Comey at the FBI and James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, launched an operation, using what we now know is the fake Steele dossier, to spy on the Trump presidential campaign and even attempt to entrap Trump campaign employees.

Notice a pattern here?

Now we hear that the latest trigger for impeachment is a CIA officer assigned to the White House who filed a “whistleblower” complaint against the President over something he heard from someone else that the President said in the Ukraine phone call.

Shockingly, according to multiple press reports, the rules for CIA whistleblowing were recently changed, dropping the requirement that the whistleblower have direct, firsthand knowledge of the wrongdoing. Just before this complaint was filed, the rule-change allowed hearsay or secondhand information to be accepted. That seems strange.

As it turns out, the CIA “whistleblower” lurking around the White House got the important things wrong, as there was no quid pro quo discussed and there was no actual request to investigate Biden or his son.

The Democrats have suddenly come out in praise of whistleblowers – well not exactly. Pelosi still wants to prosecute actual whistleblower Ed Snowden.¹ But she’s singing the praises of this fake CIA “whistleblower.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer once warned Trump that if “you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” It’s hard not to ask whether this is a genuine impeachment effort…or a CIA coup!

---

The commentary above is reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity and the site Antiwar.com, which often prints Paul's work.

---

1. Pelosi was one of the few people in Washington who was kept informed about the Obama administration's illegal program of massive surveillance of Americans that was exposed by Snowden. -- P.C.

---

The Invisible Man comments:
'2d whistleblower' touted as coup attempt falters
The New York Times is reporting that another intelligence official is "considering" becoming a whistleblower. This person, the Times says, has more specific knowledge of the President's conversation with Ukraine's leader.

It seems fair to draw the conclusion that Deep State spookdom saw that its maneuver was faltering and is attempting to rescue its coup attempt from disaster.

The import of Schumer's observation on the power of the intelligence system to exact revenge on presidents and lawmakers is that Congress and the Executive Branch have lost control of this force. Top-tier spooks have become members of a new aristocracy, the likes of which had never before been seen in our freedom-loving country.

Americans quite often idolize aristocrats -- as long as they are foreign ones with something glamorous about them. Otherwise, the taint of aristocracy has always been a death knell to political ambitions. This is how Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republicans overthrew the power of the entrenched Hamiltonian Federalists, who were perceived by the public as persons of aristocratic pretensions. Similarly, the populist Andrew Jackson brought to the fore the interests of the common man (if he was not an indigenous American) over against the interests of the monied elite.

The CIA, with its long history of clubiness with crony capitalism, has long functioned as the enforcement arm of the crony capitalist aristocracy. It is evident that these aristocrats are bent on ousting an upstart populist who presumes to represent the people.

---

Correction: A previous version of this post mistakenly cited "Paul's Antiwar.com site." Paul is not listed as affiliated with that site.