shadowproof--2020-09-05--Julian Assange’s Lawyer In United States Describes What Makes US Prosecution Against Him ‘Very Dange

Julian Assange’s Lawyer In United States Describes What Makes US Prosecution Against Him ‘Very Dangerous’

Julian Assange ’ s Lawyer In United States Describes What Makes US Prosecution Against Him ‘ Very Dangerous ’ The trial portion of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s extradition hearing will unfold from September 7 until at least September 24 .
Ahead of the extradition hearing , Shadowproof managing editor Kevin Gosztola interviewed Barry Pollack , who is Assange ’ s lawyer in the United States .
In the interview , Pollack outlines why the U.S. government ’ s position in the case is a “ very dangerous one.
” He describes several aspects that would likely lead one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if extradited to the U.S. for a trial and what makes this hearing September so crucial for Assange ’ s legal team .
The following is a transcript of the interview with Barry Pollack , who is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s lawyer in the United States .
It was edited for clarity in a few sections .
GOSZTOLA : What aspects of defending Julian Assange do you focus upon as his U.S. lawyer , and where does your work fit into the larger defense ?
POLLACK : I represent him with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the United States were ever successful in getting him extradited to the United States , I would be the one who would represent in court against those charges .
Right now , obviously , what is happening is the extradition in the U.K. That extradition , whether or not he ’ s going to be extradited , will be determined by U.K. law , not by U.S. law .
He has a team of British lawyers representing him in that proceeding .
I am coordinating with them , advising them on U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would face if he were brought here because some of that is quite relevant to the extradition proceedings .
But they are very much his lawyers in the U.K. for purposes of the extradition hearing .
I am his lawyer here in the United States to defend him if and when he is required to face those charges .
GOSZTOLA : And you ’ ve , to some degree , represented him before the extradition request ?
POLLACK : Yes , I ’ ve been part of his legal team for a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the [ Ecuador ] embassy when I first started representing him .
But I represented him for a number of years prior to the criminal charges or the extradition request having been made .
GOSZTOLA : One of the issues that has become pronounced is we see the U.S. government making this argument that Julian should be denied First Amendment rights while at the same time suggesting they can bring a prosecution under the Espionage Act .
But many defense attorneys have defended alleged leakers by claiming the Espionage Act is too broad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , making First Amendment defenses to try to see how far those might go .
How do you view this dynamic that is part of the U.S. prosecution ?
POLLACK : The position that the U.S. is taking is a very dangerous one .
The position the U.S. is taking is that they have jurisdiction all over the world and can pursue criminal charges against any journalist anywhere on the planet , whether they ’ re a U.S. citizen or not .
But if they ’ re not a U.S. citizen , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them but that person has no defense under the First Amendment .
It remains to be seen whether a U.S. court would accept that position , but that certainly is the position that the government is taking .
In the cases that have been brought under the Espionage Act to date , efforts to build defenses around the First Amendment have been quite unsuccessful .
The courts have not [ generally allowed or supported defenses ] based on the First Amendment .
But those are cases where the defendant was a leaker , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unique .
The U.S. government has never tried to charge a journalist or a publisher under the Espionage Act .
GOSZTOLA : That raises an important question in my mind , which is , how can someone who is not from the U.S. be expected to submit to these U.S. secrecy laws and regulations , especially when he never signed a non-disclosure agreement ?
A key part of these Espionage Act prosecutions are that they are brought forward as strict liability offenses , that he signed something .
It seems that there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. government that he signed anything to agree to not disclose information .
POLLACK : That ’ s correct .
In the cases that have been brought to date , the charges have been against an employee of the government , a government contractor , a former employee of the government , all people who entered into an agreement with the government that they would not disclose classified information .
Journalists don ’ t enter into that type of agreement , and every day the New York Times and the Washington Post publish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has never charged a domestic reporter under the Espionage Act .
Up until the current administration , I think it was widely understood that doing so would be inconsistent with the First Amendment .
Publishers do not have those kinds of non-disclosure agreements .
They report what is newsworthy , and that includes classified information that comes into their possession .
What the government is doing here is not only charging a publisher who has no non-disclosure obligation but charging a publisher who is not in the United States .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publishing from the U.K .
So it is an unprecedented prosecution .
GOSZTOLA : What concerns do you have about the U.S. criminal justice system ?
One aspect is that there are such things as coercive pleas .
Are you concerned about what would happen if he was put on trial and the way in which he could be pressured to not go to trial in the United States ?
POLLACK : The pressure on defendants in the federal criminal justice system in the United States generally is extraordinary .
In a case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater .
There is frequently in the United States a tremendous disparity between the penalty somebody receives if they plead guilty versus the penalty that they would receive if they go to trial and are ultimately unsuccessful .
So there is a tremendous disincentive to go to trial .
Approximately 97 percent of all federal criminal cases end in the plea , not going to trial , for that reason .
Here one would expect Julian would be kept in an isolated administrative detention .
In other words , he would be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awaiting trial , awaiting appeals .
Once sentenced and put into the Bureau of Prisons system , he would likely be sent to a maximum security system .
And the potential sentences if he is convicted after trial are extraordinary .
He ’ s facing a maximum of 175 years .
Under those conditions , it would be very , very difficult for somebody to say I want to go trial , and if I ’ m unsuccessful , I want to appeal and be heard in the Supreme Court .
Even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend years in draconian prison conditions fighting the charges .
Yes , there would be tremendous on him to accept some sort of a deal that mitigated some of those consequences .
GOSZTOLA : If you ’ re the prosecutors , you bring 18 charges .
You only have to convince a court that he committed three offenses , and then you ’ ve essentially put him behind bars for what amounts to a life sentence because you just consider his age .
Have you gained any greater awareness through being able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is by comparison to European countries in the way that they wouldn ’ t stack sentences that add up to 175 years ?
POLLACK : There are all kinds of differences between the way the U.K. would treat this situation and how the United States would treat the situation .
Not only is it charged much more aggressively in the United States , but in the U.K. , there clearly are public interest exceptions to the publication of state secrets .
In the U.K. , it is pretty clear that this would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly will be an issue in the extradition proceeding .
Also , the conditions of confinement in the U.K. are different .
In the U.K. , if you are convicted of a crime , in this case a nonviolent crime , you would not be held in isolation , essentially solitary confinement indefinitely , potentially for years , potentially for the rest of your life .
That would not happen in the U.K .
In the U.K. , there is better access to medical care in the prison system .
There is better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison system .
So , there are all kinds of differences between the U.S. system of justice and U.S. conditions of confinement and those in the U.K. And I think all of those are likely to come up in the extradition hearing as reasons why the U.K. should not be willing to extradite him .
GOSZTOLA : How would you describe the Eastern District of Virginia ?
And how do you see the makeup of a possible jury pool as bolstering this argument that justice would be denied to Assange ?
Can the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor of arguing against extradition ?
POLLACK : You would have to ask the U.K. lawyers where that fits in terms of extradition law , but there is no question in the United States there are different demographics in different districts .
And the Eastern District of Virginia is a district that has a disproportionately high number of Defense Department employees , intelligence community employees , family members of those employees , people who hold a security clearance , etc .
It is certainly not a representative district .
If the case were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a very different jury pool then you do in Alexandria , Virginia .
I don ’ t think the U.S. government is blind to the fact .
The U.S. government could have chosen to charge him in any district in the country because the law is when an alleged crime is committed abroad there is venue in whatever district is the first district that you arrive in the United States .
Since Mr. Assange would be brought in custody , the U.S. government could take him to any district they wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It has chosen the Eastern District of Virginia , and that ’ s not a coincidence .
The U.S. government thinks it will get a favorable jury pool in the Eastern District of Virginia .
GOSZTOLA : I could be off in my analogy , but to take an issue that has captivated the country for the last six-to-seven months , it ’ s almost to me like if you had jury made up almost entirely of police officers , and they were hearing a case involving involving an officer who shot and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem like we would think it was fair for them to be the only people on that jury .
POLLACK : We would not think it was fair to give somebody in a police shooting case a jury pool that was disproportionately made up of police officers .
I think we would also not think it was fair that one side gets to pick which district and which jury pool it wants to have .
But that ’ s exactly what the law allows .
GOSZTOLA : Finally , I understand this upcoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very crucial hearing for the legal team .
Clarify for me what this hearing means and how essential it is for certain evidence to be brought in order to undermine what the U.S. government is doing .
POLLACK : This is the main taking of evidence regarding the extradition request .
So this is essentially the equivalent of the trial for purposes of developing the facts on which the decision will be made whether or not to extradite .
The various legal issues that come into play in extradition : Is this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been some sort of abuse of process ?
Has the government accurately represented the nature of the charges and the allegations to the court ?
Are the conditions of confinement in the United States comparable to what they are in the U.K. ?
Is this even a crime in the U.K. ?
All of those things that will go into deciding whether or not extradition is appropriate—What ’ s going to unfold over the next three weeks is we ’ re going to hear from witnesses who are going to speak to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether or not each of those things are in fact true .
Obviously , from our perspective , we hope and believe that the witnesses are going to be very compelling on each of those issues and that each one of those issues militates against extraditing .

Editor’s Note The trial portion of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition hearing will unfold from September 7 until at least September 24. Ahead of the extradition hearing, Shadowproof managing editor Kevin Gosztola interviewed Barry Pollack, who is Assange’s lawyer in the United States. In the interview, Pollack outlines why the U.S. government’s position in the case is a “very dangerous one.” He describes several aspects that would likely lead one to believe Assange would be denied justice if extradited to the U.S. for a trial and what makes this hearing September so crucial for Assange’s legal team.
The following is a transcript of the interview with Barry Pollack, who is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s lawyer in the United States. It was edited for clarity in a few sections.
GOSZTOLA: What aspects of defending Julian Assange do you focus upon as his U.S. lawyer, and where does your work fit into the larger defense?
POLLACK: I represent him with respect to the charges here. So if the United States were ever successful in getting him extradited to the United States, I would be the one who would represent in court against those charges. Right now, obviously, what is happening is the extradition in the U.K. That extradition, whether or not he’s going to be extradited, will be determined by U.K. law, not by U.S. law. He has a team of British lawyers representing him in that proceeding.
I am coordinating with them, advising them on U.S. law, U.S. procedures, what Julian would face if he were brought here because some of that is quite relevant to the extradition proceedings. But they are very much his lawyers in the U.K. for purposes of the extradition hearing. I am his lawyer here in the United States to defend him if and when he is required to face those charges.
GOSZTOLA: And you’ve, to some degree, represented him before the extradition request?
POLLACK: Yes, I’ve been part of his legal team for a number of years. He was already in the [Ecuador] embassy when I first started representing him. But I represented him for a number of years prior to the criminal charges or the extradition request having been made.
GOSZTOLA: One of the issues that has become pronounced is we see the U.S. government making this argument that Julian should be denied First Amendment rights while at the same time suggesting they can bring a prosecution under the Espionage Act. But many defense attorneys have defended alleged leakers by claiming the Espionage Act is too broad when it comes to the First Amendment, making First Amendment defenses to try to see how far those might go.
How do you view this dynamic that is part of the U.S. prosecution?
POLLACK: The position that the U.S. is taking is a very dangerous one. The position the U.S. is taking is that they have jurisdiction all over the world and can pursue criminal charges against any journalist anywhere on the planet, whether they’re a U.S. citizen or not. But if they’re not a U.S. citizen, not only can the U.S. pursue charges against them but that person has no defense under the First Amendment. It remains to be seen whether a U.S. court would accept that position, but that certainly is the position that the government is taking.
In the cases that have been brought under the Espionage Act to date, efforts to build defenses around the First Amendment have been quite unsuccessful. The courts have not [generally allowed or supported defenses] based on the First Amendment. But those are cases where the defendant was a leaker, not a publisher.
This case is unique. The U.S. government has never tried to charge a journalist or a publisher under the Espionage Act.
GOSZTOLA: That raises an important question in my mind, which is, how can someone who is not from the U.S. be expected to submit to these U.S. secrecy laws and regulations, especially when he never signed a non-disclosure agreement?
A key part of these Espionage Act prosecutions are that they are brought forward as strict liability offenses, that he signed something. It seems that there is no evidence whatsoever in favor of the U.S. government that he signed anything to agree to not disclose information.
POLLACK: That’s correct. In the cases that have been brought to date, the charges have been against an employee of the government, a government contractor, a former employee of the government, all people who entered into an agreement with the government that they would not disclose classified information.
Journalists don’t enter into that type of agreement, and every day the New York Times and the Washington Post publish classified information. The Department of Justice has never charged a domestic reporter under the Espionage Act. Up until the current administration, I think it was widely understood that doing so would be inconsistent with the First Amendment.
Publishers do not have those kinds of non-disclosure agreements. They report what is newsworthy, and that includes classified information that comes into their possession.
What the government is doing here is not only charging a publisher who has no non-disclosure obligation but charging a publisher who is not in the United States. They’re charging an Australian citizen, who is publishing from the U.K. So it is an unprecedented prosecution.
GOSZTOLA: What concerns do you have about the U.S. criminal justice system? One aspect is that there are such things as coercive pleas. Are you concerned about what would happen if he was put on trial and the way in which he could be pressured to not go to trial in the United States?
POLLACK: The pressure on defendants in the federal criminal justice system in the United States generally is extraordinary. In a case like this, it would be even greater. There is frequently in the United States a tremendous disparity between the penalty somebody receives if they plead guilty versus the penalty that they would receive if they go to trial and are ultimately unsuccessful.
So there is a tremendous disincentive to go to trial. Approximately 97 percent of all federal criminal cases end in the plea, not going to trial, for that reason.
Here one would expect Julian would be kept in an isolated administrative detention. In other words, he would be in jail effectively under solitary confinement, even awaiting trial, awaiting appeals. Once sentenced and put into the Bureau of Prisons system, he would likely be sent to a maximum security system.
And the potential sentences if he is convicted after trial are extraordinary. He’s facing a maximum of 175 years. Under those conditions, it would be very, very difficult for somebody to say I want to go trial, and if I’m unsuccessful, I want to appeal and be heard in the Supreme Court. Even if you were ultimately successful, you would spend years in draconian prison conditions fighting the charges.
Yes, there would be tremendous on him to accept some sort of a deal that mitigated some of those consequences.
GOSZTOLA: If you’re the prosecutors, you bring 18 charges. You only have to convince a court that he committed three offenses, and then you’ve essentially put him behind bars for what amounts to a life sentence because you just consider his age.
Have you gained any greater awareness through being able to work with U.K. attorneys on how out-of-line this is by comparison to European countries in the way that they wouldn’t stack sentences that add up to 175 years?
POLLACK: There are all kinds of differences between the way the U.K. would treat this situation and how the United States would treat the situation. Not only is it charged much more aggressively in the United States, but in the U.K., there clearly are public interest exceptions to the publication of state secrets.
In the U.K., it is pretty clear that this would not be a crime, and that certainly will be an issue in the extradition proceeding.
Also, the conditions of confinement in the U.K. are different. In the U.K., if you are convicted of a crime, in this case a nonviolent crime, you would not be held in isolation, essentially solitary confinement indefinitely, potentially for years, potentially for the rest of your life. That would not happen in the U.K.
In the U.K., there is better access to medical care in the prison system. There is better access to mental health treatment in the prison system. So, there are all kinds of differences between the U.S. system of justice and U.S. conditions of confinement and those in the U.K. And I think all of those are likely to come up in the extradition hearing as reasons why the U.K. should not be willing to extradite him.
GOSZTOLA: How would you describe the Eastern District of Virginia? And how do you see the makeup of a possible jury pool as bolstering this argument that justice would be denied to Assange? Can the demographics of a judicial district work in favor of arguing against extradition?
POLLACK: You would have to ask the U.K. lawyers where that fits in terms of extradition law, but there is no question in the United States there are different demographics in different districts. And the Eastern District of Virginia is a district that has a disproportionately high number of Defense Department employees, intelligence community employees, family members of those employees, people who hold a security clearance, etc.
It is certainly not a representative district. If the case were being tried in Iowa, you would have a very different jury pool then you do in Alexandria, Virginia. I don’t think the U.S. government is blind to the fact. The U.S. government could have chosen to charge him in any district in the country because the law is when an alleged crime is committed abroad there is venue in whatever district is the first district that you arrive in the United States.
Since Mr. Assange would be brought in custody, the U.S. government could take him to any district they wanted to and have venue in that district. It has chosen the Eastern District of Virginia, and that’s not a coincidence. The U.S. government thinks it will get a favorable jury pool in the Eastern District of Virginia.
GOSZTOLA: I could be off in my analogy, but to take an issue that has captivated the country for the last six-to-seven months, it’s almost to me like if you had jury made up almost entirely of police officers, and they were hearing a case involving involving an officer who shot and killed somebody. It doesn’t seem like we would think it was fair for them to be the only people on that jury.
POLLACK: We would not think it was fair to give somebody in a police shooting case a jury pool that was disproportionately made up of police officers. I think we would also not think it was fair that one side gets to pick which district and which jury pool it wants to have. But that’s exactly what the law allows.
GOSZTOLA: Finally, I understand this upcoming hearing that will span three weeks is a very crucial hearing for the legal team. Clarify for me what this hearing means and how essential it is for certain evidence to be brought in order to undermine what the U.S. government is doing.
POLLACK: This is the main taking of evidence regarding the extradition request. So this is essentially the equivalent of the trial for purposes of developing the facts on which the decision will be made whether or not to extradite.
The various legal issues that come into play in extradition: Is this is a political offense? Has there been some sort of abuse of process? Has the government accurately represented the nature of the charges and the allegations to the court? Are the conditions of confinement in the United States comparable to what they are in the U.K.? Is this even a crime in the U.K.?
All of those things that will go into deciding whether or not extradition is appropriate—What’s going to unfold over the next three weeks is we’re going to hear from witnesses who are going to speak to those issues to inform the court as to whether or not each of those things are in fact true.
Obviously, from our perspective, we hope and believe that the witnesses are going to be very compelling on each of those issues and that each one of those issues militates against extraditing.


shadowproof--2020-09-07--Judge Railroads Assange As Legal Team Objects To Fresh Extradition Request

Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected a request by the legal team for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to remove conduct from a fresh extradition request brought by the United States .
Defense attorneys also requested that the court adjourn until January after Baraitser refused to take action .
According to Baraitser , in August , she acknowledged the issues his defense had with the request .
She offered to allow them to apply for adjournment of proceedings , which would have moved the trial portion of the extradition hearing , which was previously scheduled for May , to a later date .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal team should ’ ve better understood the law and asked for an adjournment instead of demanding she exercise her authority .
The defense did not immediately ask for an adjournment because they did not want to prolong Assange ’ s confinement .
Baraitser insisted what the defense asked her to do was not appropriate during this phase of the proceedings .
Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of violating a computer crime law that , as alleged in the indictment , is also an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Assange ’ s extradition hearing in London began on September 7 at the Old Bailey Courthouse .
It is expected to unfold over the next three to four weeks .
On June 24 , the defense learned when a press release was published that Assange would soon face a third indictment .
It was their belief that the indictment only added narrative details and expanded the timeline from 2010-2011 to 2010-2015 .
The U.S. government served the indictment to the defense , but not the court , on July 2 .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extradition request based on the third indictment was issued .
( It was dated July 17 . )
Prosecutors notified the defense on August 21 that the third indictment does not include any additional charges , contrary to the defense ’ s understanding , the new details are not “ mere narrative.
” They “ constitute the conduct upon which this court is entitled , and indeed must now determine [ whether ] an extradition offense is made out ” under the relevant law .
Mark Summers , a lawyer for Assange , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which involves an alleged conspiracy to release “ national defense information , ” and Count 2 , which is an alleged conspiracy to commit computer intrusions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act .
By adding new material , prosecutors believe they can extradite Assange , even if they do not convince the court that publishing disclosures from Pfc .
Chelsea Manning was a criminal act .
The defense focused on the fact that multiple alleged “ co-conspirators ” of Assange , when it comes to the hacking elements , were the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the United Kingdom a decade ago .
Sigurdur “ Siggi ” Thordarson , who is the “ Teenager ” in the third indictment , was mentioned by the prosecution in a filing in 2019 .
So , they could have included any material from Thordarson in the previous indictment .
As the defense noted , Thordarson was “ convicted in Iceland of fraud , theft , and impersonation of Julian Assange.
” He sold merchandise through a WikiLeaks store without authorization and embezzled $ 50,000 .
“ The Icelandic Interior Minister of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of FBI prosecutors , who had arrived in Iceland to investigate the ‘ teenager ’ s ’ claims , to leave Iceland .
The Interior Minister made statements at the time and has made statements since that he believed the investigation was in order to ‘ frame Assange , ' ” the defense stated in their argument .
Prosecutors entirely omitted the fact that alleged “ co-conspirators ” “ Sabu ” ( Hector Xavier Monsegur ) “ Topiary ” ( Jake Davis ) , and “ Kalya ” ( Ryan Ackroyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court in the U.K. for their alleged involvement with LulzSec in hacking .
In other words , if Assange is a co-conspirator to this offense , why isn ’ t Assange on trial in the U.K. like Ackroyd and Davis were .
Why extradite him to the U.S. to try him for this offense ?
Sabu was working for the FBI , but how he came to be a source for allegations against Assange is absent from the fresh extradition request .
Summer mentioned Jeremy Hammond , who was prosecuted for his alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a private intelligence firm .
He is in federal prison finishing up a 10-year sentence that was disrupted by a grand jury subpoena to testify before the grand jury investigating WikiLeaks .
“ Like Manning , Hammond was held in contempt of court by Judge Anthony Trenga after refusing to testify .
He was released in March 2020 after the conclusion of the grand jury .
The parallels with Manning ’ s treatment are obvious , ” the defense suggested .
Summers said the prosecution has rebutted the argument that publishing evidence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying essentially that it was not necessary to hack into an Icelandic bank .
They aim to tie Assange to any number of cyber activities that allegedly took place .
As was argued in court , expanding the general allegations should be seen as “ fundamentally unfair and unjust without the defendant being able to address ” the development .
He is in custody , without access to visits from his legal team for the last five to six months .
He has very limited access to legal materials in the case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Assange ’ s legal team , said he was able to meet in person with Assange today for the first time in six months . )
Prosecutors maintained there was nothing inappropriate about the fresh extradition request , and the court would be making an error if it removed the conduct because the portion where evidence is heard in the case has not occurred yet .
The defense insisted it was unfair six weeks prior to this extradition hearing to issue a new request .
How Baraitser handled the matter was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the ruling she issued in February to keep Assange in a glass box at the back of the courtroom and bar him from sitting with his attorneys .
She repeatedly has refused to make rulings for the defense that she says involve “ case management ” decisions that should not be made at this point in the proceedings .

Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected a request by the legal team for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to remove conduct from a fresh extradition request brought by the United States.
Defense attorneys also requested that the court adjourn until January after Baraitser refused to take action.
According to Baraitser, in August, she acknowledged the issues his defense had with the request. She offered to allow them to apply for adjournment of proceedings, which would have moved the trial portion of the extradition hearing, which was previously scheduled for May, to a later date.
Baraitser seemed to believe Assange’s legal team should’ve better understood the law and asked for an adjournment instead of demanding she exercise her authority.
The defense did not immediately ask for an adjournment because they did not want to prolong Assange’s confinement.
Baraitser insisted what the defense asked her to do was not appropriate during this phase of the proceedings.
Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of violating a computer crime law that, as alleged in the indictment, is also an Espionage Act offense.
The trial portion of Assange’s extradition hearing in London began on September 7 at the Old Bailey Courthouse. It is expected to unfold over the next three to four weeks.
On June 24, the defense learned when a press release was published that Assange would soon face a third indictment. It was their belief that the indictment only added narrative details and expanded the timeline from 2010-2011 to 2010-2015.
The U.S. government served the indictment to the defense, but not the court, on July 2. Then, on August 12, a fresh extradition request based on the third indictment was issued. (It was dated July 17.)
Prosecutors notified the defense on August 21 that the third indictment does not include any additional charges, contrary to the defense’s understanding, the new details are not “mere narrative.” They “constitute the conduct upon which this court is entitled, and indeed must now determine [whether] an extradition offense is made out” under the relevant law.
Mark Summers, a lawyer for Assange, referred to two general allegations—Count 1, which involves an alleged conspiracy to release “national defense information,” and Count 2, which is an alleged conspiracy to commit computer intrusions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
By adding new material, prosecutors believe they can extradite Assange, even if they do not convince the court that publishing disclosures from Pfc. Chelsea Manning was a criminal act.
The defense focused on the fact that multiple alleged “co-conspirators” of Assange, when it comes to the hacking elements, were the “subject of trials” in the U.S. and the United Kingdom a decade ago.
Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson, who is the “Teenager” in the third indictment, was mentioned by the prosecution in a filing in 2019. So, they could have included any material from Thordarson in the previous indictment.
As the defense noted, Thordarson was “convicted in Iceland of fraud, theft, and impersonation of Julian Assange.” He sold merchandise through a WikiLeaks store without authorization and embezzled $50,000.
“The Icelandic Interior Minister of the time is reported to have ordered a number of FBI prosecutors, who had arrived in Iceland to investigate the ‘teenager’s’ claims, to leave Iceland. The Interior Minister made statements at the time and has made statements since that he believed the investigation was in order to ‘frame Assange,'” the defense stated in their argument.
Prosecutors entirely omitted the fact that alleged “co-conspirators” “Sabu” (Hector Xavier Monsegur) “Topiary” (Jake Davis), and “Kalya” (Ryan Ackroyd) were prosecuted before the Southwark Crown Court in the U.K. for their alleged involvement with LulzSec in hacking.
From the defense’s argument:
The U.K. prosecution involved over 45,000 pages of materials. Sabu was a named co-conspirator. That prosecution encompassed alleged criminality in the U.K. and the U.S. Despite competing U.S. indictments being issued during the currency of the U.K. case, the U.K. case continued and was concluded in 2013 by guilty pleas. In short, if it had merit, Mr Assange could and should have been prosecuted for this additional conduct years ago, alongside his so-called ‘conspirators’, and that prosecution would have occurred in the U.K. The forum bar is obviously engaged.
In other words, if Assange is a co-conspirator to this offense, why isn’t Assange on trial in the U.K. like Ackroyd and Davis were. Why extradite him to the U.S. to try him for this offense?
Sabu was working for the FBI, but how he came to be a source for allegations against Assange is absent from the fresh extradition request.
Summer mentioned Jeremy Hammond, who was prosecuted for his alleged involvement in hacking Stratfor, which was a private intelligence firm. He is in federal prison finishing up a 10-year sentence that was disrupted by a grand jury subpoena to testify before the grand jury investigating WikiLeaks.
“Like Manning, Hammond was held in contempt of court by Judge Anthony Trenga after refusing to testify. He was released in March 2020 after the conclusion of the grand jury. The parallels with Manning’s treatment are obvious,” the defense suggested.
Summers said the prosecution has rebutted the argument that publishing evidence of war crimes was “necessary” by saying essentially that it was not necessary to hack into an Icelandic bank. They aim to tie Assange to any number of cyber activities that allegedly took place.
As was argued in court, expanding the general allegations should be seen as “fundamentally unfair and unjust without the defendant being able to address” the development. He is in custody, without access to visits from his legal team for the last five to six months. He has very limited access to legal materials in the case. (Edward Fitzgerald, who is part of Assange’s legal team, said he was able to meet in person with Assange today for the first time in six months.)
Prosecutors maintained there was nothing inappropriate about the fresh extradition request, and the court would be making an error if it removed the conduct because the portion where evidence is heard in the case has not occurred yet.
The defense insisted it was unfair six weeks prior to this extradition hearing to issue a new request.
How Baraitser handled the matter was in line with previous decisions she has made, including the ruling she issued in February to keep Assange in a glass box at the back of the courtroom and bar him from sitting with his attorneys. She repeatedly has refused to make rulings for the defense that she says involve “case management” decisions that should not be made at this point in the proceedings.


shadowproof--2020-09-08--In Extradition Hearing, Julian Assange’s Legal Team Focuses On US Torture And War Crimes Exposed By

In Extradition Hearing, Julian Assange’s Legal Team Focuses On US Torture And War Crimes Exposed By WikiLeaks

In Extradition Hearing , Julian Assange ’ s Legal Team Focuses On US Torture And War Crimes Exposed By WikiLeaks WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s legal team spent the second morning of a major extradition hearing focusing a magistrate court judge ’ s attention on United States torture and war crimes that Assange helped to expose .
Defense attorney Mark Summers called Clive Stafford Smith , a human rights attorney who has represented prisoners at Guantanamo Bay , to the witness stand .
He was asked about human rights cases he pursued , which were bolstered by revelations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stafford Smith told Judge Vanessa Baraitser that U.S. State Department cables helped those impacted by U.S. drone killings in Pakistan .
It contributed to “ court findings that US drone strikes are criminal offenses and that criminal proceedings should be initiated against senior U.S. officials involved in such strikes.
” A high court in Pakistan ruled “ drone strikes carried out by the CIA and U.S. authorities were a ‘ blatant violation of basic human rights ’ including ‘ a blatant breach of the absolute right to life ’ and ‘ a war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement to the court .
Due to the decision , drone strikes that caused many “ innocent deaths ” stopped “ very rapidly.
” None were reported in 2019 .
The defense had Stafford Smith testify in order to persuade the court that Assange “ disclosed U.S. involvement in criminal activity.
” Specifically , these were “ public interest disclosures ” of war crimes and torture .
Some of the publications are currently the subject of a criminal investigation into the CIA that is before the International Criminal Court ( ICC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution against Assange is retaliation for bringing increased scrutiny to U.S. actions throughout the world .
But James Lewis , the lawyer representing the Crown Prosecution Authority on behalf of the U.S. government , was irritated by the defense ’ s focus on documents that exposed torture and war crimes .
Lewis insisted the U.S. government only charged Assange with documents that revealed the names of informants , and none of the materials Stafford Smith was asked about mattered in the extradition case .
At one point , Stafford Smith contended Lewis was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases are prosecuted ” in the United States .
An FBI expert or some other individual with a similar background would likely testify during a U.S. trial about terrorism or terrorist groups and how WikiLeaks publications helped them .
Stafford Smith highlighted the many times he has dealt with evidence of torture against Guantanamo prisoners being classified .
It has been the U.S. position that revealing such information will endanger U.S. and coalition forces by fueling retaliatory terrorist attacks .
“ You can not tell the court how this case will be prosecuted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re making things up.
” Under President Donald Trump , the U.S. government has sanctioned officials at the ICC for investigating allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan that were likely committed by the CIA , Afghan government forces , and the Taliban and its affiliates .
This includes an investigation into the CIA rendition and torture program in the country .
This retaliation against ICC officials was brought up by Summers , and Stafford Smith maintained the Trump administration believes it can sanction anyone who is not an American national who assists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes .
Stafford Smith suggested , given how WikiLeaks has supported human rights investigations through its publications , the U.S. government could target Summers and other attorneys with similar sanctions .
Abdul Rabbani is a Guantanamo Bay prisoner , who Stafford Smith represents .
He shared evidence related to his rendition and torture that contributed to the ICC decision to investigate U.S. crimes .
“ Rabbani remained in Kabul for seven months and was then moved to another prison ( which reports indicate was a CIA black site ) before being transferred ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Stafford Smith .
According to Stafford Smith , U.S. government “ attacks on journalists , leakers and those journalists who worked with them , has since the earliest days of Afghan conflict , appeared to have a strong chilling effect ’ leading to ‘ a dearth of individuals from inside government , willing to ‘ go on record ’ to evidence U.S. violations.
” “ The power and value of the WikiLeaks disclosures about Iraq and Afghanistan can scarcely be understated , and are of ‘ key importance ’ to ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the US and its allies.
” Stafford Smith added , “ The cables similarly demonstrated U.S. interference with other rendition investigations in Spain and Poland.
” As the extradition hearing continues , more witnesses are expected to detail criminal activities committed by the U.S. government , which WikiLeaks exposed .
It is all part of his defense ’ s effort to prove the case against Assange is politically motivated .

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s legal team spent the second morning of a major extradition hearing focusing a magistrate court judge’s attention on United States torture and war crimes that Assange helped to expose.
Defense attorney Mark Summers called Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights attorney who has represented prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, to the witness stand. He was asked about human rights cases he pursued, which were bolstered by revelations in documents WikiLeaks published.
For example, Stafford Smith told Judge Vanessa Baraitser that U.S. State Department cables helped those impacted by U.S. drone killings in Pakistan. It contributed to “court findings that US drone strikes are criminal offenses and that criminal proceedings should be initiated against senior U.S. officials involved in such strikes.” [Here’s the full witness statement from Stafford Smith: PDF.]
A high court in Pakistan ruled “drone strikes carried out by the CIA and U.S. authorities were a ‘blatant violation of basic human rights’ including ‘a blatant breach of the absolute right to life’ and ‘a war crime,'” Stafford Smith declared in a statement to the court. Due to the decision, drone strikes that caused many “innocent deaths” stopped “very rapidly.” None were reported in 2019.
The defense had Stafford Smith testify in order to persuade the court that Assange “disclosed U.S. involvement in criminal activity.” Specifically, these were “public interest disclosures” of war crimes and torture. Some of the publications are currently the subject of a criminal investigation into the CIA that is before the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In other words, the prosecution against Assange is retaliation for bringing increased scrutiny to U.S. actions throughout the world.
But James Lewis, the lawyer representing the Crown Prosecution Authority on behalf of the U.S. government, was irritated by the defense’s focus on documents that exposed torture and war crimes.
Lewis insisted the U.S. government only charged Assange with documents that revealed the names of informants, and none of the materials Stafford Smith was asked about mattered in the extradition case.
At one point, Stafford Smith contended Lewis was “wrong about the way in which cases are prosecuted” in the United States. An FBI expert or some other individual with a similar background would likely testify during a U.S. trial about terrorism or terrorist groups and how WikiLeaks publications helped them.
Stafford Smith highlighted the many times he has dealt with evidence of torture against Guantanamo prisoners being classified. It has been the U.S. position that revealing such information will endanger U.S. and coalition forces by fueling retaliatory terrorist attacks.
“You cannot tell the court how this case will be prosecuted,” Lewis said. “You’re making things up.”
Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. government has sanctioned officials at the ICC for investigating allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan that were likely committed by the CIA, Afghan government forces, and the Taliban and its affiliates. This includes an investigation into the CIA rendition and torture program in the country.
This retaliation against ICC officials was brought up by Summers, and Stafford Smith maintained the Trump administration believes it can sanction anyone who is not an American national who assists in the investigation of torture and war crimes.
Stafford Smith suggested, given how WikiLeaks has supported human rights investigations through its publications, the U.S. government could target Summers and other attorneys with similar sanctions.
Ahmed Rabbani is a Guantanamo Bay prisoner, who Stafford Smith represents. He shared evidence related to his rendition and torture that contributed to the ICC decision to investigate U.S. crimes.
“Rabbani remained in Kabul for seven months and was then moved to another prison (which reports indicate was a CIA black site) before being transferred” to the custody of U.S. forces, according to Stafford Smith.
According to Stafford Smith, U.S. government “attacks on journalists, leakers and those journalists who worked with them, has since the earliest days of Afghan conflict, appeared to have a strong chilling effect’ leading to ‘a dearth of individuals from inside government, willing to ‘go on record’ to evidence U.S. violations.”
“The power and value of the WikiLeaks disclosures about Iraq and Afghanistan can scarcely be understated, and are of ‘key importance’ to ‘evidence war crimes and human rights violations by the US and its allies.”
Stafford Smith added, “The cables similarly demonstrated U.S. interference with other rendition investigations in Spain and Poland.”
As the extradition hearing continues, more witnesses are expected to detail criminal activities committed by the U.S. government, which WikiLeaks exposed. It is all part of his defense’s effort to prove the case against Assange is politically motivated.


shadowproof--2020-09-08--Beyond Prisons Podcast: Prison By Any Other Name Feat. Maya Schenwar & Victoria Law

Beyond Prisons Podcast : Prison By Any Other Name Feat .
Maya Schenwar & Victoria Law Brian Sonenstein and Kim Wilson welcome back Maya Schenwar and Victoria Law to discuss their new book , Prison By Any Other Name : The Harmful Consequences Of Popular Reforms , on the Beyond Prisons podcast .
The book provides a comprehensive and thought-provoking critical analysis of popular reforms to policing and incarceration , such as electronic monitoring , diversion courts , so-called sex worker rescue programs , and a lot more .
Importantly , it explores not only how these reforms fail to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase the size and scope of policing and incarceration .
Our wide-ranging conversation touches on how electronic monitoring denies people the ability to do the basic things they need to do to live , and shifts the costs of incarceration away from the government and onto the individual and their family , harming those important relationships in a multitude of ways .
We talk about the release of this book at a time of heightened skepticism around reform projects and a growing popular awareness of abolition .
We also discuss why community policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s important to remember that we don ’ t need a replacement response for everything for which people are policed and imprisoned ; in some cases , it would be better to do nothing instead .
This episode is dedicated to Maya ’ s sister , Keeley Schenwar , who passed away in February .
Maya Schenwar is the editor-in-chief of Truthout .
She is co-author of Prison by Any Other Name : The Harmful Consequences of Popular Reforms , as well as the author of Locked Down , Locked Out , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Who Do You Protect ?
She lives in Chicago with her partner and toddler .
You can find Maya ’ s work at Truthout.org as well , MayaSchenwar.com .
Follow her on Twitter @ mayaschenwar and Facebook .
Victoria Law is a freelance journalist who focuses on the intersections of incarceration , gender , and resistance .
She is the author of Resistance Behind Bars : The Struggles of Incarcerated Women and regularly covers prison issues for Truthout and other outlets .
Her latest book , Prison By Any Other Name , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed “ alternatives ” to incarceration and explores creative and far-reaching solutions to truly end mass incarceration .
You can find more of Victoria ’ s work on her website , VictoriaLaw.net Created and hosted by Kim Wilson and Brian Sonenstein Support our show and join us on Patreon .
Check out our other donation options as well .
Please listen , subscribe , and rate/review our podcast on Apple Podcast , Spotify , and Google Play Join our mailing list for updates on new episodes , events , and more Kim Wilson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facilitate workshops .
Please contact beyondprisonspodcast @ gmail.com for more information

Brian Sonenstein and Kim Wilson welcome back Maya Schenwar and Victoria Law to discuss their new book, Prison By Any Other Name: The Harmful Consequences Of Popular Reforms, on the Beyond Prisons podcast.
The book provides a comprehensive and thought-provoking critical analysis of popular reforms to policing and incarceration, such as electronic monitoring, diversion courts, so-called sex worker rescue programs, and a lot more. Importantly, it explores not only how these reforms fail to promote safety, but how they actually increase the size and scope of policing and incarceration.
Our wide-ranging conversation touches on how electronic monitoring denies people the ability to do the basic things they need to do to live, and shifts the costs of incarceration away from the government and onto the individual and their family, harming those important relationships in a multitude of ways.
We talk about the release of this book at a time of heightened skepticism around reform projects and a growing popular awareness of abolition.
We also discuss why community policing is anti-community, and why it’s important to remember that we don’t need a replacement response for everything for which people are policed and imprisoned; in some cases, it would be better to do nothing instead.
This episode is dedicated to Maya’s sister, Keeley Schenwar, who passed away in February.
Maya Schenwar is the editor-in-chief of Truthout. She is co-author of Prison by Any Other Name: The Harmful Consequences of Popular Reforms, as well as the author of Locked Down, Locked Out, and the co-editor of Who Do You Serve, Who Do You Protect? She lives in Chicago with her partner and toddler.
You can find Maya’s work at Truthout.org as well, MayaSchenwar.com.
Follow her on Twitter @mayaschenwar and Facebook.
Victoria Law is a freelance journalist who focuses on the intersections of incarceration, gender, and resistance. She is the author of Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women and regularly covers prison issues for Truthout and other outlets. Her latest book, Prison By Any Other Name, co-written with Maya Schenwar, critically examines proposed “alternatives” to incarceration and explores creative and far-reaching solutions to truly end mass incarceration.
You can find more of Victoria’s work on her website, VictoriaLaw.net
Follow her on Twitter @LVikkiml
Episode Resources & Notes
Keeley Schenwar’s Poem
Support Truthout’s independent journalism by making a donation at truthout.org/donate
Credits
Created and hosted by Kim Wilson and Brian Sonenstein
Edited by Ellis Maxwell
Website & volunteers managed by Victoria Nam
Theme music by Jared Ware
Support Beyond Prisons
Visit our website at beyond-prisons.com
Support our show and join us on Patreon. Check out our other donation options as well.
Please listen, subscribe, and rate/review our podcast on Apple Podcast, Spotify, and Google Play
Join our mailing list for updates on new episodes, events, and more
Send tips, comments, and questions to beyondprisonspodcast@gmail.com
Kim Wilson is available for speaking engagements and to facilitate workshops. Please contact beyondprisonspodcast@gmail.com for more information
Twitter: @Beyond_Prison
Facebook:@beyondprisonspodcast
Instagram:@beyondprisons


shadowproof--2020-09-09--Trump’s ‘War On Journalism’ Takes Centerstage At Julian Assange’s Extradition Hearing

In the last half-century , journalists James Bamford , Ben Bradlee , Seymour Hersh , and Neil Sheehan were each threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act .
But the U.S. government never followed through with Espionage Act charges against a journalist until 2019 , when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested and charged .
Trevor Timm , the executive director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation ( FPF ) , told a magistrate court judge , “ [ President Donald ] Trump ’ s administration is moving to explicitly criminalize national security journalism , and if this prosecution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reporters at the New York Times , Washington Post and elsewhere would also be in danger.
” FPF is a nonprofit organization that Timm said “ protects , defends , and empowers public interest journalism in the 21st century.
” It developed SecureDrop , an “ open-source platform for secure communications between sources and media organizations.
” WikiLeaks , as Timm noted , is widely recognized as a “ pioneer ” of this kind of “ secure submission system for journalistic sources.
” The system that FPF developed is available in 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations worldwide , including the New York Times , Wall Street Journal , Associated Press , USA Today , Bloomberg News , CBC , and the Toronto Globe and Mail ” are using the system to “ solicit ” or accept leaked documents .
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists ( ICIJ ) , which published the “ Panama Papers ” investigation , has a page on their website that says , “ Leak to us.
” Dropboxes for leaks are even advertised by news organizations on social media platforms .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States Justice Department ’ s prosecution of Assange explicitly criminalizes .
However , James Lewis of the Crown Prosecution Service , who represents the U.S. government , attempted to undercut testimony from Timm .
Lewis stated it was the prosecution ’ s position that Assange is “ not a journalist.
” Timm acknowledged this position but maintained “ it doesn ’ t matter whether the U.S. government considers Assange a journalist.
” The New York Times does not need an “ issued press pass to have First Amendment rights.
” Plus , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a journalist because he “ engaged in First Amendment activities.
” Timm refused to accept the prosecution ’ s argument that the indictment against Assange is carefully tailored to only criminalize the publication of documents that contained the names of informants working for the U.S. government .
Three of the charges deal specifically with U.S. diplomatic cables that allegedly endangered informants .
But other charges relate to all documents and assert that Assange ’ s possession of the documents was a crime .
If Assange committed a crime , so have other journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a “ responsible journalist ” or in fact any journalist would publish the name of a third party when it was unnecessary to publish that name and when publishing that name would put that person ’ s life in danger .
Prior witnesses at least partly agreed with Lewis ’ point .
However , Timm astutely declared that the “ idea of who is or is not a responsible journalist is different from what is illegal or legal conduct.
” No U.S. court has ever said such publication would be illegal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wired Magazine , Senator Joseph Lieberman and other lawmakers “ introduced legislation that would make it a federal crime for anyone to publish the name of a U.S. intelligence source.
” It was a response to WikiLeaks .
Timm recalled Congress debated the legislation—the Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination ( SHIELD ) Act—which would have amended the Espionage Act .
Yet , the bill never became law so apparently Congress did not think it was necessary to make the publication of intelligence sources by anyone illegal .
Lewis referred to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that condemned the media organization for publishing over the entire cache of uncensored U.S. diplomatic cables .
Although WikiLeaks was not responsible for leaking the password that led to the decryption of a file that contained the cache , the Guardian , New York Times , El Pais , Der Spiegel , and Le Monde , along with other human rights organizations , were appalled at WikiLeaks for supposedly endangering lives .
Timm maintained the U.S. government should not be in the business of determining which newspapers or media organizations exercise sound editorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be whether what WikiLeaks did in publishing those cables was illegal , and it was not .
Furthermore , Timm called the prosecutor ’ s attention to the fact that former media partners , which were upset with WikiLeaks , are opposed to the prosecution of Assange .
In Timm ’ s statement to the court , Timm highlighted how Trump has “ attempted to stifle press freedom at all levels.
” The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker , which FPF uses to track press freedom violations in the U.S. , has tallied over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative remarks , insults , or threats to the press ” since his presidential campaign in 2016 .
He has referred to journalists as “ enemies of the people.
” The strong testimony of Timm in defense of press freedom and the First Amendment was hard for Lewis to undermine .
So , he asked , “ Why should your opinion be preferred over the opinion of courts in the United States ?
” “ My opinion is in line with previous court opinions , ” Timm answered .
“ There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manner before , ” and , “ Supreme Court precedent is almost wholly on the side of Mr. Assange in this case.
” There are guidelines known as the federal rules of prosecution that Justice Department employees are expected to follow .
Lewis absurdly cited these rules as evidence that the Assange prosecution could not be a part of a “ war on journalism.
” If the decision to prosecute Assange was part of a “ war on journalism , ” Lewis added , wouldn ’ t prosecutors in this case be acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Yes , ” Timm answered , “ and if they did breach those obligations , ” one should hope there would be accountability .

In the last half-century, journalists James Bamford, Ben Bradlee, Seymour Hersh, and Neil Sheehan were each threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act. But the U.S. government never followed through with Espionage Act charges against a journalist until 2019, when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested and charged.
Trevor Timm, the executive director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), told a magistrate court judge, “[President Donald] Trump’s administration is moving to explicitly criminalize national security journalism, and if this prosecution is allowed to go forward, dozens of reporters at the New York Times, Washington Post and elsewhere would also be in danger.”
FPF is a nonprofit organization that Timm said “protects, defends, and empowers public interest journalism in the 21st century.” It developed SecureDrop, an “open-source platform for secure communications between sources and media organizations.”
WikiLeaks, as Timm noted, is widely recognized as a “pioneer” of this kind of “secure submission system for journalistic sources.” The system that FPF developed is available in 10 languages. “More than 70 media organizations worldwide, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, USA Today, Bloomberg News, CBC, and the Toronto Globe and Mail” are using the system to “solicit” or accept leaked documents.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which published the “Panama Papers” investigation, has a page on their website that says, “Leak to us.” Dropboxes for leaks are even advertised by news organizations on social media platforms.
It is these common newsgathering practices that the United States Justice Department’s prosecution of Assange explicitly criminalizes. However, James Lewis of the Crown Prosecution Service, who represents the U.S. government, attempted to undercut testimony from Timm.
Lewis stated it was the prosecution’s position that Assange is “not a journalist.” Timm acknowledged this position but maintained “it doesn’t matter whether the U.S. government considers Assange a journalist.” The New York Times does not need an “issued press pass to have First Amendment rights.” Plus, it is beside the point whether Assange is a journalist because he “engaged in First Amendment activities.”
Timm refused to accept the prosecution’s argument that the indictment against Assange is carefully tailored to only criminalize the publication of documents that contained the names of informants working for the U.S. government.
Three of the charges deal specifically with U.S. diplomatic cables that allegedly endangered informants. But other charges relate to all documents and assert that Assange’s possession of the documents was a crime. If Assange committed a crime, so have other journalists, Timm added.
Lewis asked Timm if a “responsible journalist” or in fact any journalist would publish the name of a third party when it was unnecessary to publish that name and when publishing that name would put that person’s life in danger.
Prior witnesses at least partly agreed with Lewis’ point. However, Timm astutely declared that the “idea of who is or is not a responsible journalist is different from what is illegal or legal conduct.” No U.S. court has ever said such publication would be illegal.
Back in 2010, as documented by Wired Magazine, Senator Joseph Lieberman and other lawmakers “introduced legislation that would make it a federal crime for anyone to publish the name of a U.S. intelligence source.” It was a response to WikiLeaks.
Timm recalled Congress debated the legislation—the Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination (SHIELD) Act—which would have amended the Espionage Act. Yet, the bill never became law so apparently Congress did not think it was necessary to make the publication of intelligence sources by anyone illegal.
Lewis referred to an editorial by former media partners of WikiLeaks that condemned the media organization for publishing over the entire cache of uncensored U.S. diplomatic cables. Although WikiLeaks was not responsible for leaking the password that led to the decryption of a file that contained the cache, the Guardian, New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, along with other human rights organizations, were appalled at WikiLeaks for supposedly endangering lives.
Timm maintained the U.S. government should not be in the business of determining which newspapers or media organizations exercise sound editorial judgment or not. The question should be whether what WikiLeaks did in publishing those cables was illegal, and it was not.
Furthermore, Timm called the prosecutor’s attention to the fact that former media partners, which were upset with WikiLeaks, are opposed to the prosecution of Assange.
In Timm’s statement to the court, Timm highlighted how Trump has “attempted to stifle press freedom at all levels.” The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, which FPF uses to track press freedom violations in the U.S., has tallied over 2,000 examples, where Trump tweeted “negative remarks, insults, or threats to the press” since his presidential campaign in 2016. He has referred to journalists as “enemies of the people.”
The strong testimony of Timm in defense of press freedom and the First Amendment was hard for Lewis to undermine. So, he asked, “Why should your opinion be preferred over the opinion of courts in the United States?”
“My opinion is in line with previous court opinions,” Timm answered. “There’s never been a publisher charged in this manner before,” and, “Supreme Court precedent is almost wholly on the side of Mr. Assange in this case.”
There are guidelines known as the federal rules of prosecution that Justice Department employees are expected to follow. Lewis absurdly cited these rules as evidence that the Assange prosecution could not be a part of a “war on journalism.”
If the decision to prosecute Assange was part of a “war on journalism,” Lewis added, wouldn’t prosecutors in this case be acting contrary to federal rules of prosecution?
“Yes,” Timm answered, “and if they did breach those obligations,” one should hope there would be accountability.


shadowproof--2020-09-14--At Assange Trial, Prosecution Invokes Human Rights Court Decision That Downplayed Abusive Supermax P

At Assange Trial, Prosecution Invokes Human Rights Court Decision That Downplayed Abusive Supermax Prisons

The legal team for Julian Assange strongly believes if the WikiLeaks founder is extradited to the United States he will be detained in harsh and abusive conditions , and if convicted , he will be incarcerated in a supermax prison in Florence , Colorado , in conditions that amount to solitary confinement .
Such conditions would likely violate Article 3 of the Human Rights Act in the United Kingdom , which is supposed to protect individuals from torture or cruel and inhuman treatment .
But during the fifth day of proceedings in Assange ’ s extradition trial , James Lewis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior ruling from the European Court of Human Rights ( ECHR ) that clearly sided with the U.S. government .
Defense attorneys will likely have to persuade judges that the ECHR was incorrect or that new information involving abusive conditions has come to light in order for such evidence to save Assange from extradition .
Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that , as alleged in the indictment , is written like an Espionage Act offense .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classified information , as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government , which is why the case is widely viewed as an attack on press freedom .
Eric Lewis , an international attorney based in Washington D.C. who has previously represented Guantanamo and Afghan detainees , took the proverbial witness stand to testify via video link .
In 2012 , in a case involving Babar Ahmad and four other defendants accused of terrorism offenses , the ECHR ruled potential confinement in a U.S. supermax prison should not absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prisons applies accessible and rational criteria when deciding whether to transfer an inmate to ADX [ supermax prison ] , ” the court declared .
“ Placement is accompanied by a high degree of involvement of senior officials within the Bureau who are external to the inmate ’ s current institution .
Their involvement and the requirement that a hearing be held before transfer provide an appropriate measure of procedural protection.
” The court continued , “ Even if the transfer process were unsatisfactory , there would be recourse to both the Bureau @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal courts , by bringing a claim under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to cure any defects in the process.
” Eric Lewis was confronted with the ECHR decision , and he maintained there was more information about supermax facilities that has come out since 2012 .
Assange is not a Muslim , said Eric Lewis .
Special Administrative Measures , or SAMs , which the U.S. government employs to isolate prisoners , would not be applied based upon religion .
He also did not believe the defendants ’ potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court ’ s decision .
However , three of the defendants who appealed to the EHCR emphasized their various mental health problems .
The court mentioned those mental health conditions were not enough to prevent their detention in “ high-security prisons in the United Kingdom.
” Referring to a submission by the psychologist assigned to ADX Florence , the EHCR concluded , “ It would not appear that the psychiatric services which are available at ADX would be unable to treat such conditions .
The court accordingly finds that there would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect of these applicants in respect of their possible detention at ADX.
” That would seem to foreclose arguments against extradition that depend on evidence of Assange ’ s deteriorating mental health to persuade the U.K. courts not to authorize extradition .
* Nonetheless , evidence indicates the ECHR decision relied upon by the prosecutor exaggerated the extent of procedural protections for prisoners or disregarded the reality of what happens to those confined in a supermax facility .
Assange would be a national security inmate .
As Eric Lewis noted , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely be the one to authorize SAMs for Assange .
A report [ PDF ] published in 2017 by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School examined the impact of SAMs on prisoners .
“ Prisoners may be subjected to SAMs without any meaningful explanation or hearing regarding what they did or why the Attorney General thought the restrictions were necessary , ” the report declared .
“ They can not challenge the SAMs designation until after they are placed under SAMs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they risk having their cases dismissed for failure to exhaust the effectively meaningless Administrative Remedy Program.
” “ Because the very measures they wish to challenge also forbid communication with outside parties , prisoners whose requests to contact attorneys are denied must proceed without the assistance of counsel .
That would be a challenging feat for any layperson , and nearly impossible for someone operating under the debilitating circumstances of solitary confinement.
” The report additionally states , “ Federal prosecutors regularly request that the Attorney General place defendants under these punishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have been convicted of any crime .
In numerous cases , the Attorney General recommends lifting SAMs after the defendant pleads guilty .
This practice erodes defendants ’ presumption of innocence and serves as a tool to coerce them into cooperating with the government and pleading guilty.
” Assange could be confined under SAMs for the purpose of coercing him into pleading guilty before he has the opportunity to try and challenge the unprecedented charges against him that criminalize his work as a publisher .
Like Eric Lewis said , “ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but if Barr authorized SAMs for Assange , it would include assessments from the heads of intelligence agencies , including CIA Director Gina Haspel , who was involved in operating a black site prison , where detainees were tortured .
Haspel is complicit in some of the very examples of U.S. torture that WikiLeaks exposed , and yet she would be able to play a role in determining how he was controlled and silenced while awaiting trial .
The Justice Department would contend , as Eric Lewis suggested , that Assange had “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and they would be concerned about Assange further disclosing sensitive secrets .
At the Alexandria Detention Center , Assange could expect to be held in conditions before trial that amounted to solitary confinement .
Worse , if Assange was convicted and wound up in what is known as the H Block at ADX Florence , he would be housed in what has been described as the “ only known black site on American soil , ” or as Alan Prendergast put it for Westword , “ A black hole , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in layers of isolation until they vanish entirely .
”

The legal team for Julian Assange strongly believes if the WikiLeaks founder is extradited to the United States he will be detained in harsh and abusive conditions, and if convicted, he will be incarcerated in a supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, in conditions that amount to solitary confinement.
Such conditions would likely violate Article 3 of the Human Rights Act in the United Kingdom, which is supposed to protect individuals from torture or cruel and inhuman treatment. But during the fifth day of proceedings in Assange’s extradition trial, James Lewis, the prosecutor, focused on a prior ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that clearly sided with the U.S. government.
Defense attorneys will likely have to persuade judges that the ECHR was incorrect or that new information involving abusive conditions has come to light in order for such evidence to save Assange from extradition.
Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that, as alleged in the indictment, is written like an Espionage Act offense.
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information, as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government, which is why the case is widely viewed as an attack on press freedom.
Eric Lewis, an international attorney based in Washington D.C. who has previously represented Guantanamo and Afghan detainees, took the proverbial witness stand to testify via video link.
In 2012, in a case involving Babar Ahmad and four other defendants accused of terrorism offenses, the ECHR ruled potential confinement in a U.S. supermax prison should not absolutely prevent extradition
“The Federal Bureau of Prisons applies accessible and rational criteria when deciding whether to transfer an inmate to ADX [supermax prison],” the court declared. “Placement is accompanied by a high degree of involvement of senior officials within the Bureau who are external to the inmate’s current institution. Their involvement and the requirement that a hearing be held before transfer provide an appropriate measure of procedural protection.”
The court continued, “Even if the transfer process were unsatisfactory, there would be recourse to both the Bureau’s administrative remedy program and the federal courts, by bringing a claim under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to cure any defects in the process.”
Eric Lewis was confronted with the ECHR decision, and he maintained there was more information about supermax facilities that has come out since 2012.
Assange is not a Muslim, said Eric Lewis. Special Administrative Measures, or SAMs, which the U.S. government employs to isolate prisoners, would not be applied based upon religion. He also did not believe the defendants’ potential deterioration of mental health was central to the court’s decision.
However, three of the defendants who appealed to the EHCR emphasized their various mental health problems. The court mentioned those mental health conditions were not enough to prevent their detention in “high-security prisons in the United Kingdom.”
Referring to a submission by the psychologist assigned to ADX Florence, the EHCR concluded, “It would not appear that the psychiatric services which are available at ADX would be unable to treat such conditions. The court accordingly finds that there would not be a violation of Article 3 in respect of these applicants in respect of their possible detention at ADX.”
That would seem to foreclose arguments against extradition that depend on evidence of Assange’s deteriorating mental health to persuade the U.K. courts not to authorize extradition.
*
Nonetheless, evidence indicates the ECHR decision relied upon by the prosecutor exaggerated the extent of procedural protections for prisoners or disregarded the reality of what happens to those confined in a supermax facility.
Assange would be a national security inmate. As Eric Lewis noted, it is Attorney General William Barr, who would likely be the one to authorize SAMs for Assange.
A report [PDF] published in 2017 by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School examined the impact of SAMs on prisoners.
“Prisoners may be subjected to SAMs without any meaningful explanation or hearing regarding what they did or why the Attorney General thought the restrictions were necessary,” the report declared. “They cannot challenge the SAMs designation until after they are placed under SAMs. Even then, like all federal prisoners, they risk having their cases dismissed for failure to exhaust the effectively meaningless Administrative Remedy Program.”
“Because the very measures they wish to challenge also forbid communication with outside parties, prisoners whose requests to contact attorneys are denied must proceed without the assistance of counsel. That would be a challenging feat for any layperson, and nearly impossible for someone operating under the debilitating circumstances of solitary confinement.”
The report additionally states, “Federal prosecutors regularly request that the Attorney General place defendants under these punishing conditions while they await trial, before they have been convicted of any crime. In numerous cases, the Attorney General recommends lifting SAMs after the defendant pleads guilty. This practice erodes defendants’ presumption of innocence and serves as a tool to coerce them into cooperating with the government and pleading guilty.”
Assange could be confined under SAMs for the purpose of coercing him into pleading guilty before he has the opportunity to try and challenge the unprecedented charges against him that criminalize his work as a publisher.
Like Eric Lewis said, “This is not a terrorist case,” but if Barr authorized SAMs for Assange, it would include assessments from the heads of intelligence agencies, including CIA Director Gina Haspel, who was involved in operating a black site prison, where detainees were tortured.
Haspel is complicit in some of the very examples of U.S. torture that WikiLeaks exposed, and yet she would be able to play a role in determining how he was controlled and silenced while awaiting trial.
The Justice Department would contend, as Eric Lewis suggested, that Assange had “access to large amounts of secret information,” and they would be concerned about Assange further disclosing sensitive secrets.
At the Alexandria Detention Center, Assange could expect to be held in conditions before trial that amounted to solitary confinement.
Worse, if Assange was convicted and wound up in what is known as the H Block at ADX Florence, he would be housed in what has been described as the “only known black site on American soil,” or as Alan Prendergast put it for Westword, “A black hole, a void where men are slowly buried alive in layers of isolation until they vanish entirely.”