shadowproof--2020-02-23--John Kiriakou On Week-Long Assange Hearing: World Will Hear For First Time About Espionage Operation

John Kiriakou On Week-Long Assange Hearing: World Will Hear For First Time About Espionage Operation Against Him

Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola is in London for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s week-long extradition hearing .
Stay tuned to Shadowproof , as well as his Twitter , for coverage .
And if you support our work and are able to help fund Kevin ’ s reporting , go here to donate .
John Kiriakou is a former CIA officer and whistleblower , who has been an advocate for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange .
On the weekly podcast I co-host , “ Unauthorized Disclosure , ” I asked him about Assange ’ s one-week extradition hearing and what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overcome extradition from the United Kingdom but face extradition from Australia after he is deported from the U.K. We also discussed what he described as the “ willful ignorance ” of United States media when it comes to acknowledging how journalists were targeted by an espionage operation conducted against Assange on behalf of the CIA .
Below is an edited transcript of our conversation .
GOSZTOLA : Let me ask you about Julian Assange .
You ’ ve been doing some advocacy .
You ’ ve supported Julian , and specifically , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re learning more information about what is going on with the Spanish security company that engaged in espionage against Julian while he was in the Ecuador embassy .
We ’ ve got the first actual admission in the Spanish high court from David Morales , who is the owner that was involved in carrying out the espionage , planting these microphones , saying that he did it .
We know he made trips to Alexandria , in the D.C. area , where this grand jury is located .
So we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
I ’ m interested in your thoughts about what this first hearing is going to be in February , and I ’ m going to actually be there to report .
It will focus on Ecuador ’ s right-wing government and their attacks on him while he was in the embassy , but then it ’ s also going to focus on how these Espionage Act charges are “ political offenses ” not recognized around the world .
KIRIAKOU : Yes , this first round in February is short , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the reasons that you ’ ve cited .
We ’ re going to be able to hear for the very first time what exactly this company , and by extension the CIA and the FBI , were doing to entrap Julian .
We really don ’ t know what the story is other than what we ’ ve read in outlets like El Pais and frankly at Shadowproof , two outlets that have covered this .
The real hearing , the meat of the hearing , is going to be later on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the way into the first week of July .
That ’ s the extradition hearing , the extradition request .
[ Note : As of now , the extradition hearing is scheduled from end of May to mid-June . ]
Now , there is a precedent .
There are a few precedents actually for U.K. courts denying U.S. requests for extradition based on the United Nations determination that the way the U.S. uses solitary confinement is a form of torture .
There are two cases where two different men—one was a terrorism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were subject to extradition hearings , and the judges ruled they would likely be placed in solitary confinement .
The United Nations says the U.S. practice is a form of torture , and because of European Union law at the time and British law opposing torture , that the extraditions could not go forward .
So Julian ’ s attorneys think that they have a real shot at this .
He ’ s already been placed in solitary confinement in the U.K. , and we saw what happened to his mental state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they put him solitary confinement in the U.S. , and you know they will because he ’ s such a high-profile prisoner .
And that ’ s what they do to high-profile prisoners .
So I actually think that he has a shot .
Now , with that said , what happens if he ’ s not extradited to the United States ?
He ’ ll be expelled from the U.K. because he ’ s already done his lousy , measly ten months on the bail jumping .
So they ’ ll expel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Australian national so he ’ ll likely be expelled to Australia .
And what ’ s to stop the United States from just asking the Australians to extradite him and we start this process all over ?
So I ’ m worried frankly .
I ’ m worried for the guy .
GOSZTOLA : That ’ s true .
And there ’ s one realist response , and I feel like throwing out not just as advocacy but for people who have low amounts of information .
I ’ ll say I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a thing as a Bernie Sanders administration this would all end— GOSZTOLA : —Because there ’ s no reason to pursue Julian Assange policy-wise .
There ’ s no way the Justice Department would want to open this can of worms .
Even if Bernie Sanders is not going to say a kind word about Julian Assange , it doesn ’ t matter .
He ’ s not going to want to pursue extradition of this dissident journalist .
But the other thing I want to have you close on is—We spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was blown over by the espionage operation that was conducted against journalists and people who visited Assange at the Ecuador embassy .
And I think that what we ’ re missing in all of this is any sense among our media or our press that this is actually an attack on journalism .
GOSZTOLA : If they are self-aware , it ’ s really hard for me to tell .
There is a great clip of Jim Acosta at CNN being asked about the Julian Assange case .
It ’ s hard for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy , right , that is constantly complaining about the Trump administration revoking his press pass .
Or not letting him into the White House .
Or harassing him or being mean to him while he tries to ask a question of Donald Trump , even though he ’ s trying to put on a show for CNN while interrupting him while he ’ s speaking .
I can ’ t tell if they ’ re not aware or if they just don ’ t care .
It ’ s hard to tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t making connections , or if they really in truly believe this case is never going to impact them .
I ’ m wondering what you ’ re viewpoint is , but quite clearly when you look at what happened around the embassy , this was a targeted operation against journalists that wanted to cover Julian Assange .
I agree .
This was a well thought-out operation .
It was an operation against Julian Assange , but really it was an operation against these journalists , too .
Which is funny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CIA , we had this golden rule that came out of the bad-old days of the 1970s , and that was that you leave journalists alone .
Right ?
The CIA got burned in the Church Committee hearings and the Pike Committee hearings in the 1970s because of the way they used and exploited journalists .
And you can ’ t do that anymore .
Well , either policy has changed , which I think is likely .
Or the policy was changed for Julian Assange .
Somebody was able to argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeting of a journalist .
It was a target of Assange by using journalists .
Either way , it ’ s just rotten .
And it ’ s something that nobody , literally nobody , on the Senate or House intelligence committees has even raised , let alone addressed .

Editor’s Note Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola is in London for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s week-long extradition hearing. Stay tuned to Shadowproof, as well as his Twitter, for coverage. And if you support our work and are able to help fund Kevin’s reporting, go here to donate.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA officer and whistleblower, who has been an advocate for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
On the weekly podcast I co-host, “Unauthorized Disclosure,” I asked him about Assange’s one-week extradition hearing and what he expected. He discussed how he may overcome extradition from the United Kingdom but face extradition from Australia after he is deported from the U.K.
We also discussed what he described as the “willful ignorance” of United States media when it comes to acknowledging how journalists were targeted by an espionage operation conducted against Assange on behalf of the CIA.
Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.
GOSZTOLA: Let me ask you about Julian Assange. You’ve been doing some advocacy. You’ve supported Julian, and specifically, the latest development we know is that we’re learning more information about what is going on with the Spanish security company that engaged in espionage against Julian while he was in the Ecuador embassy. We’ve got the first actual admission in the Spanish high court from David Morales, who is the owner that was involved in carrying out the espionage, planting these microphones, saying that he did it.
We know he made trips to Alexandria, in the D.C. area, where this grand jury is located. So we’re going to have this extradition hearing coming up. I’m interested in your thoughts about what this first hearing is going to be in February, and I’m going to actually be there to report. It will focus on Ecuador’s right-wing government and their attacks on him while he was in the embassy, but then it’s also going to focus on how these Espionage Act charges are “political offenses” not recognized around the world.
KIRIAKOU: Yes, this first round in February is short, but it’s very, very important for the reasons that you’ve cited. We’re going to be able to hear for the very first time what exactly this company, and by extension the CIA and the FBI, were doing to entrap Julian. We really don’t know what the story is other than what we’ve read in outlets like El Pais and frankly at Shadowproof, two outlets that have covered this.
The real hearing, the meat of the hearing, is going to be later on in the spring, and could stretch all the way into the first week of July. That’s the extradition hearing, the extradition request. [Note: As of now, the extradition hearing is scheduled from end of May to mid-June.]
Now, there is a precedent. There are a few precedents actually for U.K. courts denying U.S. requests for extradition based on the United Nations determination that the way the U.S. uses solitary confinement is a form of torture. There are two cases where two different men—one was a terrorism suspect, one was a drug smuggler—they were subject to extradition hearings, and the judges ruled they would likely be placed in solitary confinement. The United Nations says the U.S. practice is a form of torture, and because of European Union law at the time and British law opposing torture, that the extraditions could not go forward.
So Julian’s attorneys think that they have a real shot at this. He’s already been placed in solitary confinement in the U.K., and we saw what happened to his mental state. What’s going to happen if they put him solitary confinement in the U.S., and you know they will because he’s such a high-profile prisoner. And that’s what they do to high-profile prisoners. So I actually think that he has a shot.
Now, with that said, what happens if he’s not extradited to the United States? He’ll be expelled from the U.K. because he’s already done his lousy, measly ten months on the bail jumping. So they’ll expel him from the U.K. He’s an Australian national so he’ll likely be expelled to Australia. And what’s to stop the United States from just asking the Australians to extradite him and we start this process all over?
So I’m worried frankly. I’m worried for the guy.
GOSZTOLA: That’s true. And there’s one realist response, and I feel like throwing out not just as advocacy but for people who have low amounts of information. I’ll say I believe that quite clearly if there was such a thing as a Bernie Sanders administration this would all end—
KIRIAKOU: I agree.
GOSZTOLA: —Because there’s no reason to pursue Julian Assange policy-wise. There’s no way the Justice Department would want to open this can of worms. Even if Bernie Sanders is not going to say a kind word about Julian Assange, it doesn’t matter. He’s not going to want to pursue extradition of this dissident journalist.
But the other thing I want to have you close on is—We spoke about this a while ago. I was blown over by the espionage operation that was conducted against journalists and people who visited Assange at the Ecuador embassy. And I think that what we’re missing in all of this is any sense among our media or our press that this is actually an attack on journalism.
KIRIAKOU: Oh yeah.
GOSZTOLA: If they are self-aware, it’s really hard for me to tell. There is a great clip of Jim Acosta at CNN being asked about the Julian Assange case. It’s hard for us to tell. This is the guy, right, that is constantly complaining about the Trump administration revoking his press pass. Or not letting him into the White House. Or harassing him or being mean to him while he tries to ask a question of Donald Trump, even though he’s trying to put on a show for CNN while interrupting him while he’s speaking.
I can’t tell if they’re not aware or if they just don’t care. It’s hard to tell if they’re just inept and aren’t making connections, or if they really in truly believe this case is never going to impact them. I’m wondering what you’re viewpoint is, but quite clearly when you look at what happened around the embassy, this was a targeted operation against journalists that wanted to cover Julian Assange.
KIRIAKOU: Oh yeah. It’s willful ignorance really.
I agree. This was a well thought-out operation. It was an operation against Julian Assange, but really it was an operation against these journalists, too. Which is funny to me because when I was at the CIA, we had this golden rule that came out of the bad-old days of the 1970s, and that was that you leave journalists alone. Right? The CIA got burned in the Church Committee hearings and the Pike Committee hearings in the 1970s because of the way they used and exploited journalists. And you can’t do that anymore.
Well, either policy has changed, which I think is likely. Or the policy was changed for Julian Assange. Somebody was able to argue successfully that this wasn’t a targeting of a journalist. It was a target of Assange by using journalists. Either way, it’s just rotten. And it’s something that nobody, literally nobody, on the Senate or House intelligence committees has even raised, let alone addressed.


shadowproof--2020-02-23--Interview With James Goodale: Stunning How Few In US Care About Threat Posed By Assange’s Case

James Goodale is one of the more prominent First Amendment lawyers in the United States .
He represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case .
In 2013 , Goodale wrote the book , Fighting For The Press , which outlined the threat to press freedom if President Barack Obama ’ s administration prosecuted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange .
No First Amendment attorney has been as outspoken on what will happen to journalism if the U.S. government successfully extradites Assange and brings him to trial in the U.S. for violating the Espionage Act .
Ahead of the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I spoke with Goodale about the U.S. government ’ s argument that Assange is not protected by the First Amendment .
He also addressed the evidence of an espionage operation against Assange while he was in the Ecuador embassy .
The operation was reportedly backed by the CIA .
Below is an edited transcript of our conversation .
In a few areas , the audio cut out , but it is still possible to understand all of Goodale ’ s key points on what is at stake in this case .
GOODALE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extradition hearing because I do not want Assange back in this country to be tried under the Espionage Act .
So that ’ s my general point of view .
I do not think that he should be tried under the Espionage Act because the act was designed for espionage and not for reporting the truth , which is what Assange did .
And I don ’ t want the law stretched any further than it has already been stretched .
With respect to the precise nature of the hearing , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be whether or not the offense complained of is a political offense and therefore does not hit the middle of the target with respect to the First Amendment , it ’ s close enough .
So I am following that issue very carefully to see how the court will deal with it .
Seems to be , generally speaking , the actions that Assange took were against the interests of the United States , against its political interests , and therefore he is being sent back for a political trial .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct in that and the judge agrees with me , then he can ’ t be extradited .
So that ’ s quite important .
A second issue that I ’ m following is the CIA ’ s tapping of his phone .
It is quite clear that the CIA made a deal with a Spanish security company [ inaudible ] …to have that Spanish security company videotape and audio tape everything that went on…including importantly Assange ’ s conversations with his lawyers .
If you have a conversation with your lawyer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is really fundamentally bad .
More to the point , in terms of the history of the Espionage Act as applied to these proceedings in the United States , Daniel Ellsberg , who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times , was tried under the Espionage Act back in 1973 .
That prosecution was dismissed because it came to the attention of the court that the “ plumbers , ” employees who were in the White House under President Richard Nixon ’ s tutelage , broke into the office of Ellsberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much the same as breaking into the conversations , and as a consequence , Ellsberg ’ s trial was dismissed .
By analogy , therefore , Assange should not come back to this country because his rights have been completely fouled up .
Third thing I ’ m following is that the government is taking this very strange position that Assange has no First Amendment rights whatsoever .
That position is based on the idea that Assange is not an American citizen and therefore he doesn ’ t get First Amendment protections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to put that into the court .
I will be listening carefully as to what exactly that position is .
GOSZTOLA : Is there any argument to be made that a person who is a non-American would not have First Amendment rights ?
Or are they concocting this argument , making it up on the fly out of whole cloth ?
GOODALE : I would agree with the fact that they ’ re concocting it [ but not necessarily out of whole cloth ] .
What happened once a long time ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment , and the Supreme Court said hey , the guy ’ s in Mexico .
He doesn ’ t get the protection of the Fourth Amendment .
I don ’ t think that applies to this case because , first of all , it ’ s a First Amendment case , and secondly , in the drug dealer case , he was being pilloried in Mexico .
In Assange ’ s case , when he broadcast his information—that is to say when he put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it came into this country .
So he was in the country , and if he ’ s in the country , he should get the protection of the First Amendment .
The drug dealer to whom I referred was not in this country .
Pretty disturbing that the government would take somebody who is in a country other than the United States , namely Assange , and say that he ’ s subject to the Espionage Act of this country but he doesn ’ t get the protection of the other laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the most outrageous goddamn thing I ’ ve ever heard .
GOSZTOLA : What we ’ re talking about here are secrecy laws within the United States that have bearing on First Amendment rights for U.S. citizens .
Then those laws are being imposed on someone who is a foreigner .
If the First Amendment doesn ’ t apply to Julian Assange , then how can this secrecy law ?
How can he be accused of violating the Espionage Act ?
GOODALE : Exactly , how can the government have it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
You can ’ t have it both ways .
He ’ s not subject to it and he ’ s out .
Or he is subject to it and he gets the protection .
It seems to me that when you think about this concept as applied to Assange , it makes no sense .
With a world that is tightly bound by the internet and thus we could have another example of this down the line .
A precedent that the United States can go all over the world and pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their secrets and try them under U.S. law when they ’ re in fact in some other country , not covered by protections of U.S. law , is a pretty outrageous concept .
GOSZTOLA : We see this reluctance to describe or allow Assange to be treated as a publisher .
Of course , people don ’ t want to say he ’ s a journalist .
But at minimum we can agree he ’ s a publisher .
Does it matter whether people describe him as a whistleblower or a journalist ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time trying to see him as a whistleblower because he ’ s not the originator of the information .
GOODALE : We got the leaker , Chelsea Manning .
The leakee , that ’ s Julian Assange .
Then we ’ ve got the publisher and that ’ s anybody who puts the leaks on his website .
So let ’ s look at and see what Julian Assange does .
Does he fit into the leaker category ?
No he doesn ’ t .
Is the leaker category the same as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a leaker .
So he ’ s not a whistleblower .
Then what is he ?
He ’ s a journalistic entity who ’ s receiving information .
He ’ s very much the same as a reporter .
Ok , and then he takes the information .
He passes it on to the New York Times , among others .
And the New York Times publishes it , and then Assange publishes , too .
So , as I ’ ve said , he ’ s a publisher so he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a quasi-journalist and one as a publisher .
With respect to being a publisher , it doesn ’ t matter whether you call him a journalist or not .
He should be entitled to all protections that every publisher , including the New York Times , the Guardian , and the others get , under the First Amendment if in fact the First Amendment applies , which I think it does .
It makes no difference whatsoever under the law because if , in fact , you are gathering information you should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country regardless of whether we call that person a journalist , a leakee , or anything else .
The function that he performs is something that the First Amendment protects .
It ’ s something that freedom of speech [ inaudible ] freedom of speech laws of any country should protect .
It doesn ’ t matter what you call him .
GOSZTOLA : You make the comparison between Assange and New York Times Neil Sheehan , who was involved in publishing the Pentagon Papers .
GOODALE : Many years ago , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Neil Sheehan .
They had a grand jury all set up .
They were going to indict him , and they were going to indict him under the Espionage Act .
For reasons no one really knows , the grand jury got disbanded .
They never went after Sheehan , but Sheehan and Assange are identical in terms of what happened to them and the function they performed .
GOSZTOLA : If you can apply the Espionage Act , then he has First Amendment rights .
And then if he has First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details from the espionage operation be weighed to show the case could not go forward ?
GOODALE : The basic argument you make is that the trial , if many , has to be fundamentally flawed if , in fact , everything that you ’ ve told your attorneys and told your colleagues is in the hands of the entity that is trying to prosecute you , namely the United States .
So that ’ s why I say it ’ s the same as breaking in on Ellsberg ’ s psychiatrist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the judge took a look at it and said I ’ ve got to throw the whole case out .
\ We ’ ve got to remember that Ellsberg was in the same position as Sheehan .
Tried under Espionage Act for criminal [ inaudible ] .
So that case got thrown out , so why shouldn ’ t the Assange case get thrown out ?
So why shouldn ’ t the extraditing court in [ the United Kingdom ] say it ’ s so fundamentally flawed ?
He ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The media organizations or editors are sensitive .
They describe him as a source and not a partner , even though there was collaboration .
They may be doing this because they don ’ t want to treat him as a journalist .
Is there a liability issue ?
GOODALE : I do not think there is a legal liability issue that causes the American press and particularly those who partnered with him to parse the definition of what Julian Assange was doing in this case .
I think myself that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalist profession to try to distance themselves from Assange in any way we can .
And that ’ s what we ’ re really talking about when establishment press , journalists generally speaking , say well he ’ s not really a journalist .
He ’ s a source .
It ’ s all a bunch of nonsense as far as I ’ m concerned .
He is performing for all practical purposes , and particularly for all legal purposes , all the functions of a journalist .
So come on .
Wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is doing enough of what you ’ re doing so that , when he ’ s penalized for what he ’ s doing , the penalties are going to come back and get you .
Wake up .
Julian Assange , because he ’ s not the ordinary person you ’ d meet in any kind of circumstances , the journalists are standing askance and they don ’ t want to be associated with him .
But too bad for those journalists who don ’ t want to be associated with him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to get pilloried , perhaps , without your support .
You better stand up and support him because whatever happens to him is going to happen to you , and down the line , what ’ s going to happen is really bad .
And what ’ s really bad is the United States is going to end up with an Official Secrets Act , by which leaking not only is criminalized but receiving leaks in the capacity of a leakee is also going to be criminalized .
And that is really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments , particularly authoritarian governments , to control their information .
And if they lose control , you go to jail .
They don ’ t really believe that what you have received is that criminal .
In fact , it ’ s the fact that you ’ ve got it and they don ’ t have it .
And if they don ’ t have it , they can ’ t control you .
Wake up , American press .
GOSZTOLA : Do you feel like the press and all the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
GOODALE : One person is concerned , the present speaker .
One person speaking out against one of the greatest threats to the American press in the history of the United States .
The answer to your question is no one seems to be paying any attention .
If , in fact , you were to follow world press—the world press is covering this fully and completely .
The American press isn ’ t covering it at all , as far as I can see .
Thus far .
And it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press does as to the coverage of the trial in England .
The rest of the world is concerned .
Why shouldn ’ t the U.S. press be concerned ?
I just don ’ t get it .
GOSZTOLA : There are [ members of parliament ] from European countries , who will be there as observers , but there isn ’ t a single person from [ the U.S. ] Congress who is going over to watch proceedings .
GOODALE : That ’ s a very good point .
The German parliament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange , and they will have observers .
To the best of my knowledge , the U.S. will have no one .
Part of the problem in this country , which is different from other countries , is there ’ s a sour taste in the mouths of journalists with respect to Assange ’ s activities vis-a-vis the [ Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) ] leak .
That is most freshly in their mind and because of that happenstance , and the fact that it was looked into by Mueller and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unpopular .
But so what ?
GOSZTOLA : The case that they tried to bring against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks around the issue of hacked material but we saw a court defend the right of publishing hacked material in the United States and it seems like the political establishment just can ’ t accept that that is a part of our law .
GOODALE : Well , that ’ s another good point .
That case was decided by my former First Amendment partner , Judge John Koetl .
He decided the First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country , and that Julian Assange ’ s activities with respect to the release of information concerning the DNC was protected by the First Amendment .
That suit was brought by the DNC , and Judge Koetl went out of his way to say that the activities of Assange in releasing that information were fully protected by the First Amendment .
If the Justice Department is going to succeed in persuading the world that the First Amendment doesn ’ t apply here , they ’ re going to have to overrule Judge Koetl @ @ @ @

Editor’s Note Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola is in London for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s week-long extradition hearing. Stay tuned to Shadowproof, as well as his Twitter, for coverage. And if you support our work and are able to help fund Kevin’s reporting, go here to donate.
James Goodale is one of the more prominent First Amendment lawyers in the United States. He represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case. In 2013, Goodale wrote the book, Fighting For The Press, which outlined the threat to press freedom if President Barack Obama’s administration prosecuted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
No First Amendment attorney has been as outspoken on what will happen to journalism if the U.S. government successfully extradites Assange and brings him to trial in the U.S. for violating the Espionage Act.
Ahead of the first part of Assange’s extradition hearing, I spoke with Goodale about the U.S. government’s argument that Assange is not protected by the First Amendment. He also addressed the evidence of an espionage operation against Assange while he was in the Ecuador embassy. The operation was reportedly backed by the CIA.
Below is an edited transcript of our conversation. In a few areas, the audio cut out, but it is still possible to understand all of Goodale’s key points on what is at stake in this case.
GOODALE: I have dreaded the beginning of the extradition hearing because I do not want Assange back in this country to be tried under the Espionage Act. So that’s my general point of view. I do not think that he should be tried under the Espionage Act because the act was designed for espionage and not for reporting the truth, which is what Assange did. And I don’t want the law stretched any further than it has already been stretched.
With respect to the precise nature of the hearing, while the principal issue in the extradition hearing will be whether or not the offense complained of is a political offense and therefore does not hit the middle of the target with respect to the First Amendment, it’s close enough. So I am following that issue very carefully to see how the court will deal with it.
Seems to be, generally speaking, the actions that Assange took were against the interests of the United States, against its political interests, and therefore he is being sent back for a political trial. If, in fact, I’m correct in that and the judge agrees with me, then he can’t be extradited. So that’s quite important.
A second issue that I’m following is the CIA’s tapping of his phone. It is quite clear that the CIA made a deal with a Spanish security company [inaudible]…to have that Spanish security company videotape and audio tape everything that went on…including importantly Assange’s conversations with his lawyers.
If you have a conversation with your lawyer and it’s being taped, that is really fundamentally bad.
More to the point, in terms of the history of the Espionage Act as applied to these proceedings in the United States, Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, was tried under the Espionage Act back in 1973. That prosecution was dismissed because it came to the attention of the court that the “plumbers,” employees who were in the White House under President Richard Nixon’s tutelage, broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.
That is very much the same as breaking into the conversations, and as a consequence, Ellsberg’s trial was dismissed. By analogy, therefore, Assange should not come back to this country because his rights have been completely fouled up.
Third thing I’m following is that the government is taking this very strange position that Assange has no First Amendment rights whatsoever. That position is based on the idea that Assange is not an American citizen and therefore he doesn’t get First Amendment protections. The government has said they’re going to put that into the court. I will be listening carefully as to what exactly that position is.
GOSZTOLA: Is there any argument to be made that a person who is a non-American would not have First Amendment rights? Or are they concocting this argument, making it up on the fly out of whole cloth?
GOODALE: I would agree with the fact that they’re concocting it [but not necessarily out of whole cloth].
What happened once a long time ago was that a drug dealer in Mexico was arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the Supreme Court said hey, the guy’s in Mexico. He doesn’t get the protection of the Fourth Amendment. I don’t think that applies to this case because, first of all, it’s a First Amendment case, and secondly, in the drug dealer case, he was being pilloried in Mexico.
In Assange’s case, when he broadcast his information—that is to say when he put it on the net—it went worldwide, and it came into this country. So he was in the country, and if he’s in the country, he should get the protection of the First Amendment. The drug dealer to whom I referred was not in this country.
Pretty disturbing that the government would take somebody who is in a country other than the United States, namely Assange, and say that he’s subject to the Espionage Act of this country but he doesn’t get the protection of the other laws that would otherwise protect him. It’s the most outrageous goddamn thing I’ve ever heard.
GOSZTOLA: What we’re talking about here are secrecy laws within the United States that have bearing on First Amendment rights for U.S. citizens. Then those laws are being imposed on someone who is a foreigner. If the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Julian Assange, then how can this secrecy law? How can he be accused of violating the Espionage Act?
GOODALE: Exactly, how can the government have it one way and not the other way? You can’t have it both ways. He’s not subject to it and he’s out. Or he is subject to it and he gets the protection. It seems to me that when you think about this concept as applied to Assange, it makes no sense.
With a world that is tightly bound by the internet and thus we could have another example of this down the line. A precedent that the United States can go all over the world and pick up people who they think are stealing their secrets and try them under U.S. law when they’re in fact in some other country, not covered by protections of U.S. law, is a pretty outrageous concept.
GOSZTOLA: We see this reluctance to describe or allow Assange to be treated as a publisher. Of course, people don’t want to say he’s a journalist. But at minimum we can agree he’s a publisher.
Does it matter whether people describe him as a whistleblower or a journalist? I’ve always had a tough time trying to see him as a whistleblower because he’s not the originator of the information.
GOODALE: We got the leaker, Chelsea Manning. The leakee, that’s Julian Assange. Then we’ve got the publisher and that’s anybody who puts the leaks on his website. So let’s look at and see what Julian Assange does. Does he fit into the leaker category? No he doesn’t. Is the leaker category the same as the whistleblower category? So he’s not a leaker. So he’s not a whistleblower. Then what is he? He’s a journalistic entity who’s receiving information.
He’s very much the same as a reporter. Ok, and then he takes the information. He passes it on to the New York Times, among others. And the New York Times publishes it, and then Assange publishes, too. So, as I’ve said, he’s a publisher so he’s wearing two hats: one is as a quasi-journalist and one as a publisher.
With respect to being a publisher, it doesn’t matter whether you call him a journalist or not. He should be entitled to all protections that every publisher, including the New York Times, the Guardian, and the others get, under the First Amendment if in fact the First Amendment applies, which I think it does.
It makes no difference whatsoever under the law because if, in fact, you are gathering information you should be protected under the laws of this country regardless of whether we call that person a journalist, a leakee, or anything else. The function that he performs is something that the First Amendment protects. It’s something that freedom of speech [inaudible] freedom of speech laws of any country should protect. It doesn’t matter what you call him.
GOSZTOLA: You make the comparison between Assange and New York Times Neil Sheehan, who was involved in publishing the Pentagon Papers.
GOODALE: Many years ago, the government tried to do the same thing to Neil Sheehan. They had a grand jury all set up. They were going to indict him, and they were going to indict him under the Espionage Act. For reasons no one really knows, the grand jury got disbanded. They never went after Sheehan, but Sheehan and Assange are identical in terms of what happened to them and the function they performed.
GOSZTOLA: If you can apply the Espionage Act, then he has First Amendment rights. And then if he has First Amendment rights, how would all the details from the espionage operation be weighed to show the case could not go forward?
GOODALE: The basic argument you make is that the trial, if many, has to be fundamentally flawed if, in fact, everything that you’ve told your attorneys and told your colleagues is in the hands of the entity that is trying to prosecute you, namely the United States. So that’s why I say it’s the same as breaking in on Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, which is what the U.S. government did and the judge took a look at it and said I’ve got to throw the whole case out. \
We’ve got to remember that Ellsberg was in the same position as Sheehan. Tried under Espionage Act for criminal [inaudible]. So that case got thrown out, so why shouldn’t the Assange case get thrown out? So why shouldn’t the extraditing court in [the United Kingdom] say it’s so fundamentally flawed? He’s not going to go back.
GOSZTOLA: The media organizations or editors are sensitive. They describe him as a source and not a partner, even though there was collaboration. They may be doing this because they don’t want to treat him as a journalist.
Is there a liability issue?
GOODALE: I do not think there is a legal liability issue that causes the American press and particularly those who partnered with him to parse the definition of what Julian Assange was doing in this case. I think myself that it’s absolute foolishness on behalf of the journalist profession to try to distance themselves from Assange in any way we can. And that’s what we’re really talking about when establishment press, journalists generally speaking, say well he’s not really a journalist. He’s a source.
It’s all a bunch of nonsense as far as I’m concerned. He is performing for all practical purposes, and particularly for all legal purposes, all the functions of a journalist. So come on. Wake up, American press. This guy is doing enough of what you’re doing so that, when he’s penalized for what he’s doing, the penalties are going to come back and get you. Wake up.
Julian Assange, because he’s not the ordinary person you’d meet in any kind of circumstances, the journalists are standing askance and they don’t want to be associated with him. But too bad for those journalists who don’t want to be associated with him.
C’mon. He’s going to get pilloried, perhaps, without your support. You better stand up and support him because whatever happens to him is going to happen to you, and down the line, what’s going to happen is really bad.
And what’s really bad is the United States is going to end up with an Official Secrets Act, by which leaking not only is criminalized but receiving leaks in the capacity of a leakee is also going to be criminalized. And that is really bad because you’re just inviting governments, particularly authoritarian governments, to control their information.
And if they lose control, you go to jail. They don’t really believe that what you have received is that criminal. In fact, it’s the fact that you’ve got it and they don’t have it. And if they don’t have it, they can’t control you. Wake up, American press.
GOSZTOLA: Do you feel like the press and all the people who should be concerned have responded adequately?
GOODALE: One person is concerned, the present speaker. One person speaking out against one of the greatest threats to the American press in the history of the United States. The answer to your question is no one seems to be paying any attention.
If, in fact, you were to follow world press—the world press is covering this fully and completely. The American press isn’t covering it at all, as far as I can see. Thus far. And it will be very interesting to see what the press does as to the coverage of the trial in England.
The rest of the world is concerned. Why shouldn’t the U.S. press be concerned? I just don’t get it.
GOSZTOLA: There are [members of parliament] from European countries, who will be there as observers, but there isn’t a single person from [the U.S.] Congress who is going over to watch proceedings.
GOODALE: That’s a very good point. The German parliament [inaudible] briefing sessions related to Assange, and they will have observers. To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. will have no one.
Part of the problem in this country, which is different from other countries, is there’s a sour taste in the mouths of journalists with respect to Assange’s activities vis-a-vis the [Democratic National Committee (DNC)] leak. That is most freshly in their mind and because of that happenstance, and the fact that it was looked into by Mueller and is still around, has made Assange particularly unpopular. But so what?
GOSZTOLA: The case that they tried to bring against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks around the issue of hacked material but we saw a court defend the right of publishing hacked material in the United States and it seems like the political establishment just can’t accept that that is a part of our law.
GOODALE: Well, that’s another good point. That case was decided by my former First Amendment partner, Judge John Koetl.
He decided the First Amendment applies to Julian Assange in this country, and that Julian Assange’s activities with respect to the release of information concerning the DNC was protected by the First Amendment. That suit was brought by the DNC, and Judge Koetl went out of his way to say that the activities of Assange in releasing that information were fully protected by the First Amendment.
If the Justice Department is going to succeed in persuading the world that the First Amendment doesn’t apply here, they’re going to have to overrule Judge Koetl’s decision.


shadowproof--2020-02-24--Assange’s Defense Details CIA-Backed Espionage Operation, Trump’s Politicization Of Justice Departme

Assange’s Defense Details CIA-Backed Espionage Operation, Trump’s Politicization Of Justice Department

Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola is in London for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s week-long extradition hearing .
Stay tuned to Shadowproof , as well as his Twitter , for coverage .
And if you support our work and are able to help fund Kevin ’ s reporting , go here to donate .
The defense for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange alleged that the director of a Spanish security company known as Undercover Global was contracted by Sheldon Adelson , a billionaire who is one of President Donald Trump ’ s biggest donors .
The allegation was made during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfolding at Woolwich Court in London .
It is adjacent to Her Majesty ’ s Prison Belmarsh , where Assange is detained .
What happens this week will be a kind of prequel to a more substantial hearing scheduled to occur in late May and early June .
As the Spanish newspaper El País previously reported , Undercover Global targeted Assange when he lived in the Ecuador embassy in the United Kingdom on behalf of the CIA .
Personnel spied on privileged meetings between Assange and his lawyers .
He met with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bathroom to ensure privacy , but it did not matter .
They planted microphones in the women ’ s bathroom too .
Edward Fitzgerald , a defense attorney for Assange , alleged Morales returned from Las Vegas in 2017 after attending a security trade fair .
The contract was to provide security for Adelson ’ s private yacht , but while he was in the United States , he inked a “ side agreement ” to go to the “ dark side ” and spy on Assange for U.S. intelligence .
A whistleblower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was referred to in court as “ Witness # 2 , ” revealed data was collected and uploaded daily to a remote server .
That information was accessed by U.S. intelligence .
Original recordings , including sound , were collected from several microphones every 14 days .
There were apparently conversations within the company about employing more extreme measures , such as kidnapping or poisoning Assange .
The kidnapping scenario that was discussed involved leaving the door of the embassy open so that officers or agents on behalf of U.S. intelligence could rush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 found the suggestions of “ extreme measures ” shocking , and multiple employees came to believe the course Morales was taking was dangerous .
Around December 21 , 2017 , Assange was granted “ diplomatic status ” by the Ecuador government .
U.S. intelligence was spying and knew about this development .
This same date , a criminal complaint of “ computer misuse ” and extradition on a “ provisional warrant ” was sought .
His prosecution became a “ political imperative.
” The espionage operation was not limited to Assange .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , doctors , and any Russians or Americans who visited Assange .
At a security checkpoint , visitors were instructed to “ hand over their bags , computers , electronic devices , and cellphones , ” according to El País .
While visitors met with Assange , employees of the company put together reports that could be shared with the CIA via a server in Juarez de la Frontera .
The FBI allegedly had access to files , too .
Assange was expelled from the Ecuador embassy in April 2019 .
Upon expulsion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed on to the U.S. government by the right-wing Ecuador government led by Lenin Moreno , who initiated a pressure campaign to force Assange out of the embassy .
Fitzgerald argued this was evidence of how the Trump administration has politicized the case .
Given the espionage operation , Assange has “ reason to fear ” Trump ’ s political motivations .
And if extradited , he would face real risks once brought to the United States given these extreme measures .
The defense outlined what they described as a “ strange interlude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where former Republican Representative Dana Rohrabacher and a right-wing activist named Charles Johnson met with Assange at the embassy in August 2017 .
Assange ’ s attorneys said there was a discussion about a preemptive pardon “ in exchange for personal assistance to President Trump in the inquiry ” into alleged Russian involvement in the hacking and leaking of the Democratic National Committee emails .
They apparently told Assange that Trump was aware they were meeting and approved of a proposal that would benefit Trump politically , while at the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , after the defense teased this allegation last week , Rohrabacher denied it was at the direction of Trump .
“ The Threat of Prosecution As a Means of Extortion ” “ President Trump himself denies everything .
But in the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies : ‘ Well he would , wouldn ’ t he ?
’ ” Fitzgerald said to the court .
“ And there may yet be further developments in relation to this particular aspect of the case , prompted by the public reporting of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this whole pardon business shows that , just as the prosecution was initiated in December 2017 for political purposes , so too the Trump administration [ was ] prepared to use the threat of prosecution as a means of extortion to obtain personal political advantage from Mr. Assange , ” Fitzgerald added .
The defense pointed to Trump ’ s obsession with power , along with attacks on media , to assert that the court must stay the extradition request .
They likened what has happened to Assange to cases loosely tied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promised pardons if he can extract some kind of benefit from defendants .
Assange ’ s case shows how the “ dividing line between the high executive , the political executive , is being blurred as has happened in many other examples recently.
” And according to the defense , the history provides the clearest evidence that extradition is an “ abuse of process ” that constitutes bad faith and abuses of power on the part of Trump .
In 2013 , then-Justice Department spokesperson Matthew Miller spoke about the decision under President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information , which the department is not , then there is no way to prosecute Assange.
” To the defense , the Trump administration ’ s reversal of this decision is another glaring example of how officials are playing politics—and likely politicizing the case because they dislike Assange and his political opinions .
As the defense recalled the “ sheer scale and significance of the revelations ” brought about by Assange and WikiLeaks , they told the court , “ They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting unarmed civilians from a helicopter to the brutal torture of detainees in Iraq and the exposure of the true figures of civilian deaths resulting from the invasion of Iraq .
Such revelations obviously put him in the sights of the aggressive ‘ America First ’ ideologues of the Trump Administration.
” High-ranking officials , like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , have said WikiLeaks is a non-state hostile intelligence agency and that Assange has no First Amendment rights .
They have publicly denounced him in ways that the defense believes are prejudicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to uphold by showing restraint in their remarks when speaking about ongoing cases .
Professor Noam Chomsky , who submitted expert testimony for the court , declared , “ In courageously upholding political beliefs that most of [ us ] profess to share , he has performed an enormous service to all those in the world , who treasure the values of freedom and democracy and who therefore demand the right to know what their elected representatives are doing.
” “ So Julian Assange ’ s positive impact on the world is undeniable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostility it has provoked from the Trump administration is equally undeniable .
”

Editor’s Note Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola is in London for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s week-long extradition hearing. Stay tuned to Shadowproof, as well as his Twitter, for coverage. And if you support our work and are able to help fund Kevin’s reporting, go here to donate.
The defense for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange alleged that the director of a Spanish security company known as Undercover Global was contracted by Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire who is one of President Donald Trump’s biggest donors.
The allegation was made during the first day of a week-long extradition hearing unfolding at Woolwich Court in London. It is adjacent to Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh, where Assange is detained.
What happens this week will be a kind of prequel to a more substantial hearing scheduled to occur in late May and early June.
As the Spanish newspaper El País previously reported, Undercover Global targeted Assange when he lived in the Ecuador embassy in the United Kingdom on behalf of the CIA.
Personnel spied on privileged meetings between Assange and his lawyers. He met with his legal team in the women’s bathroom to ensure privacy, but it did not matter. They planted microphones in the women’s bathroom too.
Edward Fitzgerald, a defense attorney for Assange, alleged Morales returned from Las Vegas in 2017 after attending a security trade fair. The contract was to provide security for Adelson’s private yacht, but while he was in the United States, he inked a “side agreement” to go to the “dark side” and spy on Assange for U.S. intelligence.
A whistleblower, who worked for Undercover Global and was referred to in court as “Witness #2,” revealed data was collected and uploaded daily to a remote server. That information was accessed by U.S. intelligence. Original recordings, including sound, were collected from several microphones every 14 days.
“Extreme Measures” Considered Like Kidnapping Or Poisoning Assange
There were apparently conversations within the company about employing more extreme measures, such as kidnapping or poisoning Assange. The kidnapping scenario that was discussed involved leaving the door of the embassy open so that officers or agents on behalf of U.S. intelligence could rush in and take Assange.
Witness #2 found the suggestions of “extreme measures” shocking, and multiple employees came to believe the course Morales was taking was dangerous.
Around December 21, 2017, Assange was granted “diplomatic status” by the Ecuador government. U.S. intelligence was spying and knew about this development. This same date, a criminal complaint of “computer misuse” and extradition on a “provisional warrant” was sought. His prosecution became a “political imperative.”
The espionage operation was not limited to Assange. Reports were compiled on journalists, attorneys, doctors, and any Russians or Americans who visited Assange.
At a security checkpoint, visitors were instructed to “hand over their bags, computers, electronic devices, and cellphones,” according to El País.
While visitors met with Assange, employees of the company put together reports that could be shared with the CIA via a server in Juarez de la Frontera. The FBI allegedly had access to files, too.
Assange was expelled from the Ecuador embassy in April 2019. Upon expulsion, his confidential papers were seized and passed on to the U.S. government by the right-wing Ecuador government led by Lenin Moreno, who initiated a pressure campaign to force Assange out of the embassy.
Defense Argues Trump Administration Politicized Assange’s Case
Fitzgerald argued this was evidence of how the Trump administration has politicized the case. Given the espionage operation, Assange has “reason to fear” Trump’s political motivations. And if extradited, he would face real risks once brought to the United States given these extreme measures.
The defense outlined what they described as a “strange interlude” in the timeline of the case, where former Republican Representative Dana Rohrabacher and a right-wing activist named Charles Johnson met with Assange at the embassy in August 2017.
Assange’s attorneys said there was a discussion about a preemptive pardon “in exchange for personal assistance to President Trump in the inquiry” into alleged Russian involvement in the hacking and leaking of the Democratic National Committee emails.
They apparently told Assange that Trump was aware they were meeting and approved of a proposal that would benefit Trump politically, while at the same time preventing Assange’s indictment and extradition. However, after the defense teased this allegation last week, Rohrabacher denied it was at the direction of Trump.
“The Threat of Prosecution As a Means of Extortion”
“President Trump himself denies everything. But in the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies: ‘Well he would, wouldn’t he?’” Fitzgerald said to the court. “And there may yet be further developments in relation to this particular aspect of the case, prompted by the public reporting of this allegation last week.”
“We say that this whole pardon business shows that, just as the prosecution was initiated in December 2017 for political purposes, so too the Trump administration [was] prepared to use the threat of prosecution as a means of extortion to obtain personal political advantage from Mr. Assange,” Fitzgerald added.
The defense pointed to Trump’s obsession with power, along with attacks on media, to assert that the court must stay the extradition request. They likened what has happened to Assange to cases loosely tied to Russiagate allegations, where Trump has promised pardons if he can extract some kind of benefit from defendants.
Assange’s case shows how the “dividing line between the high executive, the political executive, is being blurred as has happened in many other examples recently.” And according to the defense, the history provides the clearest evidence that extradition is an “abuse of process” that constitutes bad faith and abuses of power on the part of Trump.
In 2013, then-Justice Department spokesperson Matthew Miller spoke about the decision under President Barack Obama not to indict Assange. “If you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.”
To the defense, the Trump administration’s reversal of this decision is another glaring example of how officials are playing politics—and likely politicizing the case because they dislike Assange and his political opinions.
As the defense recalled the “sheer scale and significance of the revelations” brought about by Assange and WikiLeaks, they told the court, “They range from the video of American soldiers shooting unarmed civilians from a helicopter to the brutal torture of detainees in Iraq and the exposure of the true figures of civilian deaths resulting from the invasion of Iraq. Such revelations obviously put him in the sights of the aggressive ‘America First’ ideologues of the Trump Administration.”
High-ranking officials, like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have said WikiLeaks is a non-state hostile intelligence agency and that Assange has no First Amendment rights. They have publicly denounced him in ways that the defense believes are prejudicial and defy the ethics officials are expected to uphold by showing restraint in their remarks when speaking about ongoing cases.
Professor Noam Chomsky, who submitted expert testimony for the court, declared, “In courageously upholding political beliefs that most of [us] profess to share, he has performed an enormous service to all those in the world, who treasure the values of freedom and democracy and who therefore demand the right to know what their elected representatives are doing.”
“So Julian Assange’s positive impact on the world is undeniable,” Chomsky argued. “The hostility it has provoked from the Trump administration is equally undeniable.”


shadowproof--2020-02-28--Judge: Julian Assange Must Remain In Glass Box During Extradition Proceedings

Banners and signs outside of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange 's extradition hearing in London .
Photo by Kevin Gosztola.Banners and signs outside of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange 's extradition hearing in London .
Photo by Kevin Gosztola .
Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola is in London for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s week-long extradition hearing .
Stay tuned to Shadowproof , as well as his Twitter , for coverage .
And if you support our work and are able to help fund Kevin ’ s reporting , go here to donate .
Defendants in the United States sit with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ secure dock ” in a manner that physically removes them from proceedings .
Yet , in the United Kingdom , where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces extradition to the U.S. , a magistrate court judge decided he must remain isolated in a glass box at the back of the courtroom .
The first proceedings in Assange ’ s extradition hearing concluded on Thursday at the Woolwich courthouse in London , which is adjacent to Her Majesty ’ s Prison Belmarsh where Assange is detained .
Assange is charged with 17 counts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a computer crime offense , which contains language from the Espionage Act .
The defense requested that Judge Vanessa Baraitser allow Assange to sit with his attorneys in the “ well ” of the courtroom .
“ [ We ’ ve ] now been in court for four days , and Mr. Assange has dealt with those four days stoically , ” defense attorney Mark Summers declared .
Yet , there are “ cumulative problems ” for Assange that “ arise from a number of factors.
” Summers raised the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the glass box impinges on and prevents “ proper communication in a confidential way with legal representatives.
” The legal team can not see when Assange wants to communicate with them .
Due to the layout of the court , Assange ’ s ability to speak confidentially through “ glass slats is difficult.
” Conversations must happen in “ proximity of security guards ” [ and ] “ representatives of the U.S. government.
” What is said may be overheard by microphones , a concern for Assange given the espionage operation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that targeted him on behalf of the CIA while he was in the Ecuador embassy .
Microphones were planted to eavesdrop on attorney-client privileged communications .
Summers encouraged the judge to permit Assange to sit with his legal team and enjoy “ free , uninterrupted unoverheard conversations with his lawyers ” about evidence that will be presented during an upcoming three-week extradition proceeding in May .
The judge flatly rejected this request .
She maintained Assange has had “ no difficulty at all in attracting the attention of those who sit on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the well .
He communicated with them via notes during the week .
Attempts were made to deal with “ poor acoustics , ” according to Baraitser , including the noise from demonstrators outside the courthouse .
He was told to raise his hand so proceedings could be repeated .
Headphones were provided on the last day , yet he “ declined ” to say when he could not hear and simply chose not to wear them because the ambient sound was too bothersome .
Baraitser dismissed the notion that he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require a change in security procedure .
She was willing to alter restrictions on passing notes , loosen limits on legal visits outside the courtroom , and address how to better protect confidential conversations so he can have “ proper adequate access.
” But she would not take the meaningful step of protecting his right to a fair trial by allowing him to be outside the glass box while in court .
The judge even proposed that the defense request more “ frequent breaks ” and ramp up their “ written communications ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would rather a three-week hearing turn into a six-week hearing than risk Assange being “ unable to participate.
” But this suggestion—that the court expend twice the resources and take double the time instead of upholding Assange ’ s rights—was understandably opposed by the defense .
It would jeopardize the ability of the defense to present their evidence “ coherently and in an uninterrupted manner.
” The episode was made even more absurd by the prosecutor , James Lewis , who remained neutral and unopposed to Assange sitting with his lawyers .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedents where the accused had joined their legal team in the “ well , ” and the judge briefly argued with the prosecutor .
“ Mr .
Assange is having significant difficulties in participating in these proceedings .
He ’ s unable to pass notes in a confidential and secure way .
He ’ s unable to seek clarification from his legal team and give instructions during the course of the proceedings , ” stated Jen Robinson , one of Assange ’ s attorneys .
“ And the judge has refused his ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to participate properly .
This is obviously raising serious concerns about his fair trial rights and his ability to properly participate and defend himself in these proceedings.
” Rebecca Vincent , the U.K. Bureau Director for Reporters Without Borders , indicated the organization was “ concerned by the magistrate ’ s decision to reject Mr. Assange ’ s request to leave the secure dock that he ’ s being held in at the back of this courtroom and to sit with his lawyers in the well of the court.
” “ He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , unable to confer with his lawyers , and is looking pretty unwell .
Also , the fact that he is being held in essentially a glass cage and treated like a violent criminal is completely inappropriate [ given ] the nature of the charges.
” No Requirement For The Dock , Simply Recommended Policy JUSTICE describes itself as an “ all-party law reform and human rights organization working to strengthen the justice system ” in the U.K .
In a 2015 report [ PDF ] , they examined the use of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts , which were rarely used before the 1980s .
“ The reason for the modern widespread use of the dock is to prevent escape or violence .
Therefore , what started out as a mechanism of delineating places in the courtroom has , in our view , become a disproportionate solution to meeting this perceived threat.
” According to JUSTICE ’ s report , “ Research to date suggests that there is a paucity of rigorous data demonstrating that the threat of violence on the part of the defendant or attempts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Likewise , incidents of public harm towards defendants are rarely known.
” “ While there may have been localized security concerns that led to the development of secure docks , it is not easy to discern an ongoing justification for their blanket application .
There continues to be no statutory requirement or judicial authority demanding the use of docks in the courts in England and Wales.
” “ It is simply recommended policy that docks be available in the courtroom , ” JUSTICE added .
“ It is , therefore , entirely within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ application by the defendant , or upon their own volition to dispense with the dock in any trial and allow the defendant to sit with their legal representatives.
” JUSTICE contended the “ vast majority of defendants are put in the dock whether charged with minor or serious offenses.
” Another report from the Journal of Law and Society in 2017 noted the European Court of Human Rights has developed jurisprudence that deals with “ how security docks violate Article 3 ( a prohibition on degrading treatment ) and Article 6 ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ The court has ruled that an inability to talk to one ’ s lawyer ‘ without being separated by a glass partition ’ constitutes a violation of the ‘ right to defense , ’ a defendant in a ‘ glass fronted dock ’ is denied a fair trial if he can not hear all the evidence against him , and placing an accused person in a ‘ cage ’ in the courtroom breaches Article 3 of the European Charter of Human Rights , ” the report added .
American , European @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principle that “ visible signs of confinement in the courtroom could influence decision-makers.
” Baraitser is likely aware of the struggles defendants have in the glass boxes of English courtrooms .
The JUSTICE report mentioned , “ It is often the judge who notices that the defendant wants to communicate with their lawyers , and must draw attention to it , ” which is exactly what happened several times in court .
A half century ago , the United States completely did away with the dock .
It has the largest prison population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even terrorism suspects , sit with their attorneys during trial .
As the JUSTICE report put it , “ The rejection of the dock is embedded in constitutional guarantees , indicative of the struggle against colonial powers , and due process abuses.
” The United States government may exhibit flagrant contempt for press freedom in pursuing a case against Assange , but if Assange is brought to the U.S. , he will not be secluded in a glass box during trial .
That deplorable practice fortunately will not follow him across the pond @

Editor’s Note Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola is in London for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s week-long extradition hearing. Stay tuned to Shadowproof, as well as his Twitter, for coverage. And if you support our work and are able to help fund Kevin’s reporting, go here to donate.
Defendants in the United States sit with their counsel. They are not held in a “secure dock” in a manner that physically removes them from proceedings.
Yet, in the United Kingdom, where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces extradition to the U.S., a magistrate court judge decided he must remain isolated in a glass box at the back of the courtroom.
The first proceedings in Assange’s extradition hearing concluded on Thursday at the Woolwich courthouse in London, which is adjacent to Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh where Assange is detained.
Assange is charged with 17 counts of violating the U.S. Espionage Act, and a computer crime offense, which contains language from the Espionage Act.
The defense requested that Judge Vanessa Baraitser allow Assange to sit with his attorneys in the “well” of the courtroom.
“[We’ve] now been in court for four days, and Mr. Assange has dealt with those four days stoically,” defense attorney Mark Summers declared. Yet, there are “cumulative problems” for Assange that “arise from a number of factors.”
Summers raised the issue of Assange’s health and noted that the glass box impinges on and prevents “proper communication in a confidential way with legal representatives.” The legal team cannot see when Assange wants to communicate with them.
Due to the layout of the court, Assange’s ability to speak confidentially through “glass slats is difficult.” Conversations must happen in “proximity of security guards” [and] “representatives of the U.S. government.”
What is said may be overheard by microphones, a concern for Assange given the espionage operation that was conducted by a Spanish security company that targeted him on behalf of the CIA while he was in the Ecuador embassy. Microphones were planted to eavesdrop on attorney-client privileged communications.
Summers encouraged the judge to permit Assange to sit with his legal team and enjoy “free, uninterrupted unoverheard conversations with his lawyers” about evidence that will be presented during an upcoming three-week extradition proceeding in May.
The judge flatly rejected this request. She maintained Assange has had “no difficulty at all in attracting the attention of those who sit on the legal team” in the back row of the well. He communicated with them via notes during the week.
Attempts were made to deal with “poor acoustics,” according to Baraitser, including the noise from demonstrators outside the courthouse. He was told to raise his hand so proceedings could be repeated. Headphones were provided on the last day, yet he “declined” to say when he could not hear and simply chose not to wear them because the ambient sound was too bothersome.
‘Serious Concerns About His Fair Trial Rights’
Baraitser dismissed the notion that he has some “psychiatric vulnerability” that would require a change in security procedure. She was willing to alter restrictions on passing notes, loosen limits on legal visits outside the courtroom, and address how to better protect confidential conversations so he can have “proper adequate access.” But she would not take the meaningful step of protecting his right to a fair trial by allowing him to be outside the glass box while in court.
The judge even proposed that the defense request more “frequent breaks” and ramp up their “written communications” during the next extradition hearing. She would rather a three-week hearing turn into a six-week hearing than risk Assange being “unable to participate.”
But this suggestion—that the court expend twice the resources and take double the time instead of upholding Assange’s rights—was understandably opposed by the defense. It would jeopardize the ability of the defense to present their evidence “coherently and in an uninterrupted manner.”
The episode was made even more absurd by the prosecutor, James Lewis, who remained neutral and unopposed to Assange sitting with his lawyers. He mentioned to the judge that there were precedents where the accused had joined their legal team in the “well,” and the judge briefly argued with the prosecutor.
“Mr. Assange is having significant difficulties in participating in these proceedings. He’s unable to pass notes in a confidential and secure way. He’s unable to seek clarification from his legal team and give instructions during the course of the proceedings,” stated Jen Robinson, one of Assange’s attorneys. “And the judge has refused his ability to leave the dock to be able to participate properly. This is obviously raising serious concerns about his fair trial rights and his ability to properly participate and defend himself in these proceedings.”
Rebecca Vincent, the U.K. Bureau Director for Reporters Without Borders, indicated the organization was “concerned by the magistrate’s decision to reject Mr. Assange’s request to leave the secure dock that he’s being held in at the back of this courtroom and to sit with his lawyers in the well of the court.”
“He’s been unable to follow proceedings properly, unable to confer with his lawyers, and is looking pretty unwell. Also, the fact that he is being held in essentially a glass cage and treated like a violent criminal is completely inappropriate [given] the nature of the charges.”
No Requirement For The Dock, Simply Recommended Policy
JUSTICE describes itself as an “all-party law reform and human rights organization working to strengthen the justice system” in the U.K. In a 2015 report [PDF], they examined the use of “docks” in the country’s courts, which were rarely used before the 1980s.
“The reason for the modern widespread use of the dock is to prevent escape or violence. Therefore, what started out as a mechanism of delineating places in the courtroom has, in our view, become a disproportionate solution to meeting this perceived threat.”
According to JUSTICE’s report, “Research to date suggests that there is a paucity of rigorous data demonstrating that the threat of violence on the part of the defendant or attempts to escape the dock are regular problems. Likewise, incidents of public harm towards defendants are rarely known.”
“While there may have been localized security concerns that led to the development of secure docks, it is not easy to discern an ongoing justification for their blanket application. There continues to be no statutory requirement or judicial authority demanding the use of docks in the courts in England and Wales.”
“It is simply recommended policy that docks be available in the courtroom,” JUSTICE added. “It is, therefore, entirely within the discretion of the courts, upon application by the defendant, or upon their own volition to dispense with the dock in any trial and allow the defendant to sit with their legal representatives.”
JUSTICE contended the “vast majority of defendants are put in the dock whether charged with minor or serious offenses.”
Another report from the Journal of Law and Society in 2017 noted the European Court of Human Rights has developed jurisprudence that deals with “how security docks violate Article 3 (a prohibition on degrading treatment) and Article 6 (the right to a fair trial).”
“The court has ruled that an inability to talk to one’s lawyer ‘without being separated by a glass partition’ constitutes a violation of the ‘right to defense,’ a defendant in a ‘glass fronted dock’ is denied a fair trial if he cannot hear all the evidence against him, and placing an accused person in a ‘cage’ in the courtroom breaches Article 3 of the European Charter of Human Rights,” the report added.
American, European and Australian cases have relied on a principle that “visible signs of confinement in the courtroom could influence decision-makers.”
Baraitser is likely aware of the struggles defendants have in the glass boxes of English courtrooms. The JUSTICE report mentioned, “It is often the judge who notices that the defendant wants to communicate with their lawyers, and must draw attention to it,” which is exactly what happened several times in court.
A half century ago, the United States completely did away with the dock. It has the largest prison population in the world, yet defendants, even terrorism suspects, sit with their attorneys during trial.
As the JUSTICE report put it, “The rejection of the dock is embedded in constitutional guarantees, indicative of the struggle against colonial powers, and due process abuses.”
The United States government may exhibit flagrant contempt for press freedom in pursuing a case against Assange, but if Assange is brought to the U.S., he will not be secluded in a glass box during trial. That deplorable practice fortunately will not follow him across the pond.


shadowproof--2020-02-27--Prosecution: US-UK Treaty Does Not Apply To Assange Extradition

Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola is in London for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s week-long extradition hearing .
Stay tuned to Shadowproof , as well as his Twitter , for coverage .
And if you support our work and are able to help fund Kevin ’ s reporting , go here to donate .
The prosecution in Julian Assange ’ s extradition hearing in London Wednesday maintained a magistrate court has the authority to flout an international norm enshrined in treaties and approve the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder to the United States .
Arguments on the third day of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ political offenses ” and whether an extradition treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. applies to the case .
If it does , the defense believes extradition should be denied because the allegations against Assange involve the publication of state secrets and are “ purely political offenses.
” 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 offense .
Espionage is widely recognized as an “ offense directed against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signed [ PDF ] by both the U.S. and the U.K. in 2003 contains a section that explicitly applies to political offenses .
It states , “ Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.
” However , in 2003 , the U.K. Parliament passed the Extradition Act and omitted a section on political offenses .
The prosecution argues Parliament did not include a right related to political offenses , therefore , Assange can not invoke the protection to prevent his extradition .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2003 law is unclear .
But at the time of passage , it was early in the global war on terrorism .
Christopher Joyner , a professor of international law at Georgetown University , articulated what was a prevalent concern at the time .
“ Perhaps most problematic for extradition cases involving acts of terrorism is the political offense exception .
Many modern extradition treaties specifically exempt political offenses from extradition , since liberal and democratic governments developed a strong antipathy toward the idea of surrendering dissidents into the hands of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are , however , no recognized criteria as to what constitutes a ‘ political ’ offense , nor is there a rule of international law prohibiting the extradition of political offenders .
As a result , the decision whether to extradite rests on subjective criteria , as determined by the holding government.
” “ Accordingly , the bilateral extradition system can provide only partial remedies for bringing international terrorists to justice .
The consequence is that , while governments might agree that terrorist acts rise to being criminal offenses against the international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in prosecuting such acts may still be lacking.
” The U.S.-U.K. treaty dealt with this issue by specifically listing violent offenses that were to be excluded from the political offense exception .
Judge Vanessa Baraitser seemed receptive to the prosecution ’ s argument for disregarding the treaty .
Before James Lewis , the lead prosecutor , responded to the defense , Baraitser instructed the defense to stop their argument about political offenses and focus on whether the treaty is relevant to proceedings .
To this , defense attorney Edward Fitzgerald told the judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extradition request .
“ To have an extradition request , you ’ ve got to have a treaty.
” The Magna Carta of 1215 banned arbitrary detention and granted defendants rights of habeas corpus .
Fitzgerald emphasized that such due process protections have been enshrined for centuries , and in fact , the U.S. Constitution contains them as well .
But as the “ Don ’ t Extradite Assange Campaign ” observed , the judge acted like Parliament overrode the Magna Carta , as the defense outlined why a person should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered several salient examples that related to the matter of political offenses .
“ It is ultimately no different [ than ] the extradition request concerning MI5 agent David Shayler , prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1989 for passing top secret documents to The Mail on Sunday in 1997 , ” the defense recalled .
That included “ disclosing the names of agents who had been put in fear of their lives by his actions.
” The French Court of Appeals rejected extradition in 1998 because it was covered by the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described , “ Shayler disclosed that MI5 kept files on prominent politicians , including Labour Ministers , that the bombings of the City of London in 1993 and the Israeli embassy in 1994 could have been avoided , and that MI6 were involved in a plot to assassinate ” Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi .
The case of Katharine Gun was mentioned , a GCHQ whistleblower who revealed a pressure campaign against UN member countries to coerce support for the invasion of Iraq .
Also , the judge heard about how prosecutors , intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attributed motivation and purpose to Assange that strongly suggests he was committed to damaging the work of U.S. security and intelligence agencies and that he wanted to damage the “ capability of the armed forces of the [ U.S. ] to carry out their tasks ” and sought to “ endanger the interests ” of the U.S. abroad.
” U.S. government officials “ freely , publicly , and regularly ascribe motives ‘ hostile ’ ” to the U.S. government to Assange , which the defense believes is evidence he is charged with political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detailed may make little difference if the judge agrees with prosecutors that the extradition treaty does not matter .
What takes priority is what is in domestic law , and in domestic law , Assange deserves no protection from this specific violation of his rights .
Standing outside the Woolwich courthouse adjacent to the Belmarsh prison where Assange is detained , WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said , “ This is an anti-terrorist court here beside Belmarsh , and Julian is treated as a terrorist .
He is strip-searched .
He is handcuffed ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ legal ] material is taken away from him .
It is totally unacceptable.
” Hrafnsson was speaking about the toll the proceedings and confinement are taking on Assange .
In the afternoon , when the judge asked Assange if he needed a break , he stood up to address the court .
He complained yet again about the lack of access to his attorneys and how there are security guards around him any time he wants to have a privileged conversation .
Assange suggested there were unnamed officials from the Ecuador embassy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing .
There has been enough spying on my lawyers already .
The other side has about 100 times more contact with their lawyers per day.
” These remarks came near the end of the day , and the defense informed the judge they would like Assange to be able to sit with them in the well instead of the glass box .
She opposed the request , contending it was unreasonable to think she could approve that without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved in security .
When the defense made it clear they would make a formal request , she seemed to think they would have to ask for bail , which the prosecution would oppose .
That prompted Lewis , the prosecutor , to inform the judge they took a “ neutral stance.
” He did not think a bail application was appropriate nor did he think it was as complicated as the judge was making it .
Assange could have a security guard stand by him while he sat with his attorneys .

Editor’s Note Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola is in London for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s week-long extradition hearing. Stay tuned to Shadowproof, as well as his Twitter, for coverage. And if you support our work and are able to help fund Kevin’s reporting, go here to donate.
Published in partnership with Common Dreams.
The prosecution in Julian Assange’s extradition hearing in London Wednesday maintained a magistrate court has the authority to flout an international norm enshrined in treaties and approve the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder to the United States.
Arguments on the third day of the hearing focused on the issue of “political offenses” and whether an extradition treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. applies to the case. If it does, the defense believes extradition should be denied because the allegations against Assange involve the publication of state secrets and are “purely political offenses.”
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 offense. Espionage is widely recognized as an “offense directed against the state itself.”
An extradition treaty signed [PDF] by both the U.S. and the U.K. in 2003 contains a section that explicitly applies to political offenses. It states, “Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.”
However, in 2003, the U.K. Parliament passed the Extradition Act and omitted a section on political offenses. The prosecution argues Parliament did not include a right related to political offenses, therefore, Assange cannot invoke the protection to prevent his extradition.
Why the political offense exception was omitted from the 2003 law is unclear. But at the time of passage, it was early in the global war on terrorism.
Christopher Joyner, a professor of international law at Georgetown University, articulated what was a prevalent concern at the time.
“Perhaps most problematic for extradition cases involving acts of terrorism is the political offense exception. Many modern extradition treaties specifically exempt political offenses from extradition, since liberal and democratic governments developed a strong antipathy toward the idea of surrendering dissidents into the hands of a despotic government.”
Joyner continued, “There are, however, no recognized criteria as to what constitutes a ‘political’ offense, nor is there a rule of international law prohibiting the extradition of political offenders. As a result, the decision whether to extradite rests on subjective criteria, as determined by the holding government.”
“Accordingly, the bilateral extradition system can provide only partial remedies for bringing international terrorists to justice. The consequence is that, while governments might agree that terrorist acts rise to being criminal offenses against the international community, strict multilateral enforcement through extradition in prosecuting such acts may still be lacking.”
The U.S.-U.K. treaty dealt with this issue by specifically listing violent offenses that were to be excluded from the political offense exception.
Judge Vanessa Baraitser seemed receptive to the prosecution’s argument for disregarding the treaty. Before James Lewis, the lead prosecutor, responded to the defense, Baraitser instructed the defense to stop their argument about political offenses and focus on whether the treaty is relevant to proceedings.
To this, defense attorney Edward Fitzgerald told the judge the treaty is the basis of the extradition request. “To have an extradition request, you’ve got to have a treaty.”
The Magna Carta of 1215 banned arbitrary detention and granted defendants rights of habeas corpus. Fitzgerald emphasized that such due process protections have been enshrined for centuries, and in fact, the U.S. Constitution contains them as well. But as the “Don’t Extradite Assange Campaign” observed, the judge acted like Parliament overrode the Magna Carta, as the defense outlined why a person should not be subject to arbitrary detention.
The defense offered several salient examples that related to the matter of political offenses.
“It is ultimately no different [than] the extradition request concerning MI5 agent David Shayler, prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1989 for passing top secret documents to The Mail on Sunday in 1997,” the defense recalled. That included “disclosing the names of agents who had been put in fear of their lives by his actions.”
The French Court of Appeals rejected extradition in 1998 because it was covered by the “political offense exception.”
As the defense described, “Shayler disclosed that MI5 kept files on prominent politicians, including Labour Ministers, that the bombings of the City of London in 1993 and the Israeli embassy in 1994 could have been avoided, and that MI6 were involved in a plot to assassinate” Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi.
The case of Katharine Gun was mentioned, a GCHQ whistleblower who revealed a pressure campaign against UN member countries to coerce support for the invasion of Iraq.
Also, the judge heard about how prosecutors, intelligence officials, politicians, and others have attributed motivation and purpose to Assange that strongly suggests he was committed to damaging the work of U.S. security and intelligence agencies and that he wanted to damage the “capability of the armed forces of the [U.S.] to carry out their tasks” and sought to “endanger the interests” of the U.S. abroad.”
U.S. government officials “freely, publicly, and regularly ascribe motives ‘hostile’” to the U.S. government to Assange, which the defense believes is evidence he is charged with political offenses.
Ultimately, what the defense detailed may make little difference if the judge agrees with prosecutors that the extradition treaty does not matter. What takes priority is what is in domestic law, and in domestic law, Assange deserves no protection from this specific violation of his rights.
***
Standing outside the Woolwich courthouse adjacent to the Belmarsh prison where Assange is detained, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said, “This is an anti-terrorist court here beside Belmarsh, and Julian is treated as a terrorist. He is strip-searched. He is handcuffed ten or 11 times a day. His [legal] material is taken away from him. It is totally unacceptable.”
Hrafnsson was speaking about the toll the proceedings and confinement are taking on Assange. In the afternoon, when the judge asked Assange if he needed a break, he stood up to address the court. He complained yet again about the lack of access to his attorneys and how there are security guards around him any time he wants to have a privileged conversation.
Assange suggested there were unnamed officials from the Ecuador embassy in the courtroom. “I cannot communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing. There has been enough spying on my lawyers already. The other side has about 100 times more contact with their lawyers per day.”
These remarks came near the end of the day, and the defense informed the judge they would like Assange to be able to sit with them in the well instead of the glass box. She opposed the request, contending it was unreasonable to think she could approve that without a “risk assessment” from personnel involved in security.
When the defense made it clear they would make a formal request, she seemed to think they would have to ask for bail, which the prosecution would oppose. That prompted Lewis, the prosecutor, to inform the judge they took a “neutral stance.” He did not think a bail application was appropriate nor did he think it was as complicated as the judge was making it. Assange could have a security guard stand by him while he sat with his attorneys.