shadowproof--2020-09-17--Assange’s Extradition Trial: Court Hears About History Of Political Prosecutions Under Espionage Act

Assange ’ s Extradition Trial : Court Hears About History Of Political Prosecutions Under Espionage Act “ There has never , in the century-long history of the Espionage Act , been an indictment of a U.S. publisher under the law for the publication of secrets , ” declared Carey Shenkman , an attorney who has co-authored a first-of-its-kind peer-reviewed book on the Espionage Act .
Shenkman testified during WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s extradition trial and added , “ There has never been an extraterritorial indictment of a non- [ United States ] publisher under the Act.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered the mere circulation of anti-war materials a violation of the law .
Nearly 2,500 individuals were prosecuted under the Act on account of their dissenting views and opposition to U.S. entry in the war , ” Shenkman added .
Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that , as alleged in the indictment , is written like an Espionage Act offense .
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information , as well as the publication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
It targets common practices in newsgathering , which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world .
Shenkman previously was an associate for Michael Ratner , an esteemed human rights attorney who was the president emeritus for the Center for Constitutional Rights .
Ratner was part of the WikiLeaks legal team until he tragically died from cancer in 2016 .
Prosecutor Clair Dobbin attempted to disqualify Shenkman because he worked for Ratner when he represented Assange .
She also frittered away the time that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypothetical opinions on statements in past cases with outcomes favorable to the prosecution .
Few of the prosecution ’ s questions had anything to do with his testimony for the court on the Espionage Act , as it is being applied to Assange , and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act , which Assange is also accused of violating .
Shenkman did not hesitate to tell her she was wasting his time and the magistrate court ’ s time .
The prosecution probably sought to avoid most of what Shenkman had to share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. government to confront how this is a political prosecution , and they have to maintain the charges are not political to win Assange ’ s extradition .
Shenkman told Judge Vanessa Baraitser the Espionage Act was a product of “ one of the most repressive periods in the history of the United States.
” “ Following the U.S. declaration of war in World War I , the administration of President Woodrow Wilson introduced a multi-faceted bill that would become the Espionage Act of 1917 .
The term ‘ espionage ’ was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Although the law allowed for the prosecution of spies , the conduct it proscribed went well beyond spying .
Indeed , the Espionage Act would become the principal tool for what President Wilson dubbed his administration ’ s ‘ firm hand of stern repression ’ against opposition to U.S. participation in the war.
” The law passed in Congress on June 15 , 1917 , and was amended eleven months later .
“ [ It ] was expansive in scope .
Despite the removal of the most egregious passages of the original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights more than any federal statute passed in the previous century , ” Shenkman wrote in his statement to the court .
He detailed how the government could broadly apply it to dissenters : Its full title is noteworthy : “ An Act to punish acts of interference with foreign relations , the neutrality , and the foreign commerce of the United States , to punish espionage , and better to enforce the criminal laws of the United States , and for other purposes.
” Whilst the Espionage Act established harsh penalties for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in light of U.S. entry into the war addressed such matters as U.S. control of arm shipments and its ports , the Act also reflected the government ’ s desire to control information and public opinion regarding the war effort .
It embraced broad proscriptions against the possession and transmission of information related to national defense ; established severe penalties for criticism of the war ; contained conspiracy provisions ; and established a censorship system for the press .
The original legislation was not demarcated as wartime emergency legislation ; key provisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace as well as war , and remain in force a century after their enactment .
Shenkman highlighted the prosecutions of film producer Robert Goldstein , International Workers of the World leader William “ Big Bill ” Haywood , and Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debs .
Debs was sentenced to prison for 10 years after he gave a speech in Canton , Ohio , that was called “ the most famous protest speech of its time.
” Before his sentence , he warned , “ Free speech , free assemblage and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and self-government , are but a mockery under the espionage law administered and construed by the official representatives of the ruling class.
” Shenkman pointed out it has always been up to prosecutors to decide whether to go after innocent citizens .
As far as the press goes , “ internal deliberations ” over cases have consistently “ shown great ambivalence about the scope of the Espionage Act.
” Prosecutors have recognized if they prosecute certain journalists in the U.S. media then they will open the door for prosecutions of all journalists at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Amendment , Shenkman noted .
There are prior attempts to prosecute publishers that involved grand juries .
As Shenkman highlighted , the Chicago Tribune faced the threat of prosecution in 1942 after the “ paper published secrets following the U.S. victory at the Battle of Midway.
” The Tribune was a conservative newspaper that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt viewed as a “ political enemy.
” “ Ultimately , the case lost momentum and was dropped , owing partly to the concerns raised for freedom of the press and reluctance to disclose more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the case , William Mitchell , was skeptical that the Espionage Act applied to publication by a newspaper , ” according to Shenkman .
A small foreign affairs journal in New York City was targeted by President Harry Truman after it published an analysis critical of post-war policies in Asia .
They relied upon classified information from “ government sources who were deeply concerned over official policies , particularly in China.
” Outrage among the press led to charges being abandoned and severe sentences became small fines .
A third example involves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 1971-1973 .
They were empaneled to investigate the disclosure of a top secret study of the Vietnam War by whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg .
( I covered this in great detail in March 2019 here . )
Two other examples were shared with the court that involve Beacon Press and Jack Anderson .
In the early 1970s , Beacon Press was investigated for publishing a “ full version ” of the Pentagon Papers after Senator Mike Gravel read them into the congressional record .
Anderson was a syndicated columnist , who was on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list.
” He wanted Anderson prosecuted for publishing a “ top secret report regarding a secret U.S. military intervention in the war between India and Pakistan , that many feared would catalyze World War III.
” Shenkman did not mention them in his testimony , but in his submission to the court , he covered journalists Seymour Hersh and James Bamford , who were threatened with prosecution in 1975 and 1981 respectively .
Dick Cheney , who was an aide to President Gerald Ford , actually worried prosecuting Hersh would be “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ What will the public reaction be ?
What will the Hill reaction be ?
” And , “ How do we counter expected criticism ?
” Forty-five years later , President Donald Trump ’ s administration quite simply is not bothered by any of the criticism of their administration in the press .
They feel insulated from any blowback that may occur as a result of targeting a journalist with the Espionage Act .
Mark Summers , a defense attorney , asked Shenkman if journalists would have had any reason to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution against a member of the press in 2013 .
Shenkman said there were some people who were nervous .
In an affidavit in a leak case against State Department employee Stephen Kim , the Justice Department named Fox News reporter James Rosen as an “ aider , abettor , and co-conspirator.
” It resulted in a “ firestorm.
” Shenkman told the prosecutor after news reporting in the establishment press in 2013 , he did not believe Assange would be indicted .
He certainly did not believe he would ever be indicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I never thought based on history we ’ d see an indictment that looked like this , ” Shenkman declared .
He called the charges “ truly extraordinary.
” In his sober analysis , Shenkman asserted , “ The current U.S. administration has signaled its desire to escalate prosecutions as well as ‘ jailing journalists who publish classified information.
’ The Espionage Act ’ s breadth provides such a means.
” “ While prior legislators and Attorneys General have attempted to provide reassurance that § 793 of the Act would not ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reassurances are regarded as having no weight against the plain text of the law and the reality of the present day.
” “ What is now concluded , by journalists and publishers generally , is that any journalist in any country on earth—in fact any person—who conveys secrets that do not conform to the policy positions of the U.S. administration can be shown now to be liable to being charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 , ” he concluded .

“There has never, in the century-long history of the Espionage Act, been an indictment of a U.S. publisher under the law for the publication of secrets,” declared Carey Shenkman, an attorney who has co-authored a first-of-its-kind peer-reviewed book on the Espionage Act.
Shenkman testified during WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition trial and added, “There has never been an extraterritorial indictment of a non-[United States] publisher under the Act.”
“During World War I, federal prosecutors considered the mere circulation of anti-war materials a violation of the law. Nearly 2,500 individuals were prosecuted under the Act on account of their dissenting views and opposition to U.S. entry in the war,” Shenkman added.
Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that, as alleged in the indictment, is written like an Espionage Act offense.
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information, as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government. It targets common practices in newsgathering, which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world.
Shenkman previously was an associate for Michael Ratner, an esteemed human rights attorney who was the president emeritus for the Center for Constitutional Rights. Ratner was part of the WikiLeaks legal team until he tragically died from cancer in 2016.
Prosecutor Clair Dobbin attempted to disqualify Shenkman because he worked for Ratner when he represented Assange. She also frittered away the time that she had to cross-examine by insisting Shenkman provide hypothetical opinions on statements in past cases with outcomes favorable to the prosecution.
Few of the prosecution’s questions had anything to do with his testimony for the court on the Espionage Act, as it is being applied to Assange, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which Assange is also accused of violating. Shenkman did not hesitate to tell her she was wasting his time and the magistrate court’s time.
The prosecution probably sought to avoid most of what Shenkman had to share with the court because it would force the U.S. government to confront how this is a political prosecution, and they have to maintain the charges are not political to win Assange’s extradition.
Shenkman told Judge Vanessa Baraitser the Espionage Act was a product of “one of the most repressive periods in the history of the United States.”
“Following the U.S. declaration of war in World War I, the administration of President Woodrow Wilson introduced a multi-faceted bill that would become the Espionage Act of 1917. The term ‘espionage’ was a misnomer,” Shenkman recalled. “Although the law allowed for the prosecution of spies, the conduct it proscribed went well beyond spying. Indeed, the Espionage Act would become the principal tool for what President Wilson dubbed his administration’s ‘firm hand of stern repression’ against opposition to U.S. participation in the war.”
The law passed in Congress on June 15, 1917, and was amended eleven months later. “[It] was expansive in scope. Despite the removal of the most egregious passages of the original bill, the Act threatened First Amendment rights more than any federal statute passed in the previous century,” Shenkman wrote in his statement to the court.
He detailed how the government could broadly apply it to dissenters:
Its full title is noteworthy: “An Act to punish acts of interference with foreign relations, the neutrality, and the foreign commerce of the United States, to punish espionage, and better to enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and for other purposes.” Whilst the Espionage Act established harsh penalties for spying for a foreign enemy in wartime and in light of U.S. entry into the war addressed such matters as U.S. control of arm shipments and its ports, the Act also reflected the government’s desire to control information and public opinion regarding the war effort. It embraced broad proscriptions against the possession and transmission of information related to national defense; established severe penalties for criticism of the war; contained conspiracy provisions; and established a censorship system for the press. The original legislation was not demarcated as wartime emergency legislation; key provisions would continue to apply in times of peace as well as war, and remain in force a century after their enactment.
Shenkman highlighted the prosecutions of film producer Robert Goldstein, International Workers of the World leader William “Big Bill” Haywood, and Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debs.
Debs was sentenced to prison for 10 years after he gave a speech in Canton, Ohio, that was called “the most famous protest speech of its time.” Before his sentence, he warned, “Free speech, free assemblage and a free press, three foundations of democracy and self-government, are but a mockery under the espionage law administered and construed by the official representatives of the ruling class.”
Shenkman pointed out it has always been up to prosecutors to decide whether to go after innocent citizens. As far as the press goes, “internal deliberations” over cases have consistently “shown great ambivalence about the scope of the Espionage Act.”
Prosecutors have recognized if they prosecute certain journalists in the U.S. media then they will open the door for prosecutions of all journalists at all media outlets that will jeopardize the First Amendment, Shenkman noted.
There are prior attempts to prosecute publishers that involved grand juries. As Shenkman highlighted, the Chicago Tribune faced the threat of prosecution in 1942 after the “paper published secrets following the U.S. victory at the Battle of Midway.” The Tribune was a conservative newspaper that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt viewed as a “political enemy.”
“Ultimately, the case lost momentum and was dropped, owing partly to the concerns raised for freedom of the press and reluctance to disclose more secret information at trial. The prosecutor of the case, William Mitchell, was skeptical that the Espionage Act applied to publication by a newspaper,” according to Shenkman.
A small foreign affairs journal in New York City was targeted by President Harry Truman after it published an analysis critical of post-war policies in Asia. They relied upon classified information from “government sources who were deeply concerned over official policies, particularly in China.”
Shenkman summarized:
Truman’s administration arrested three journalists and three government sources for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act. However, no indictments were ultimately issued under the Espionage Act. Evidence emerged that the Justice Department was heavily influenced by political pressures from multiple factions within the Truman administration. Acting U.S. Secretary of State Joseph Grew came under heavy criticism when he indicated that the arrests were “one result of a comprehensive security program which is to be continued unrelentingly in order to stop completely the illegal and disloyal conveyance of confidential information to unauthorized persons.”
Outrage among the press led to charges being abandoned and severe sentences became small fines.
A third example involves the Pentagon Papers and Boston grand jury from 1971-1973. They were empaneled to investigate the disclosure of a top secret study of the Vietnam War by whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. (I covered this in great detail in March 2019 here.)
Two other examples were shared with the court that involve Beacon Press and Jack Anderson. In the early 1970s, Beacon Press was investigated for publishing a “full version” of the Pentagon Papers after Senator Mike Gravel read them into the congressional record. Anderson was a syndicated columnist, who was on President Richard Nixon’s “enemies list.” He wanted Anderson prosecuted for publishing a “top secret report regarding a secret U.S. military intervention in the war between India and Pakistan, that many feared would catalyze World War III.”
Shenkman did not mention them in his testimony, but in his submission to the court, he covered journalists Seymour Hersh and James Bamford, who were threatened with prosecution in 1975 and 1981 respectively.
Dick Cheney, who was an aide to President Gerald Ford, actually worried prosecuting Hersh would be “a public relations disaster.” He wrote, “What will the public reaction be? What will the Hill reaction be?” And, “How do we counter expected criticism?”
Forty-five years later, President Donald Trump’s administration quite simply is not bothered by any of the criticism of their administration in the press. They feel insulated from any blowback that may occur as a result of targeting a journalist with the Espionage Act.
Mark Summers, a defense attorney, asked Shenkman if journalists would have had any reason to believe the government would bring an Espionage Act prosecution against a member of the press in 2013. Shenkman said there were some people who were nervous.
In an affidavit in a leak case against State Department employee Stephen Kim, the Justice Department named Fox News reporter James Rosen as an “aider, abettor, and co-conspirator.” It resulted in a “firestorm.”
Shenkman told the prosecutor after news reporting in the establishment press in 2013, he did not believe Assange would be indicted. He certainly did not believe he would ever be indicted for publishing materials from Chelsea Manning.
“I never thought based on history we’d see an indictment that looked like this,” Shenkman declared. He called the charges “truly extraordinary.”
In his sober analysis, Shenkman asserted, “The current U.S. administration has signaled its desire to escalate prosecutions as well as ‘jailing journalists who publish classified information.’ The Espionage Act’s breadth provides such a means.”
“While prior legislators and Attorneys General have attempted to provide reassurance that § 793 of the Act would not ever be used against the press, such reassurances are regarded as having no weight against the plain text of the law and the reality of the present day.”
“What is now concluded, by journalists and publishers generally, is that any journalist in any country on earth—in fact any person—who conveys secrets that do not conform to the policy positions of the U.S. administration can be shown now to be liable to being charged under the Espionage Act of 1917,” he concluded.


shadowproof--2020-09-17--Good Ellsberg, Bad Assange: At Extradition Trial, Pentagon Papers Whistleblower Dismantles False Nar

Good Ellsberg, Bad Assange: At Extradition Trial, Pentagon Papers Whistleblower Dismantles False Narrative

Opponents of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange often hold up Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg as an example of someone who was responsible for a good leak .
They insist WikiLeaks is not like the Pentagon Papers because supposedly Assange was reckless with sensitive documents .
On the seventh day of an extradition trial against Assange , Ellsberg dismantled this false narrative and outlined for a British magistrate court why Assange would not receive a fair trial in the United States .
Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the indictment , is written like an Espionage Act offense .
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information , as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government .
It targets common practices in news gathering , which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world .
James Lewis , a prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service who represents the U.S. government , told Ellsberg , “ When you published the Pentagon Papers , you were very careful in what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead prosecutor highlighted the fact that Ellsberg withheld four volumes of the Pentagon Papers that he did not want published because they may have impacted diplomatic efforts to end the Vietnam War .
However , Ellsberg ’ s decision to withhold those volumes had nothing to do with protecting the names of U.S. intelligence sources .
As Ellsberg described for the court , the 4,000 pages of documents he disclosed to the media contained thousands of names of Americans , Vietnamese , and North Vietnamese .
There was even a clandestine CIA officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Pentagon Papers was an “ adequate justification for the killing that we were doing , ” Ellsberg said .
“ I was afraid if I redacted or withheld anything at all it would be inferred I left out ” the good reasons why the U.S. was pursuing the Vietnam War .
Ellsberg was concerned about revealing the name of a clandestine CIA officer , though he mentioned the individual was well-known in South Vietnam .
Had he published the name of the officer today , the Intelligence Identities Protection Act could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But he left it in the documents so no one could make inferences about redacted sections that may undermine what he exposed .
Like Assange , Ellsberg wanted the public to have a complete record .
This did not exactly distinguish Ellsberg from Assange so Lewis explicitly highlighted an article , “ Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike The Pentagon Papers , ” by attorney Floyd Abrams , which he wrote for the Wall Street Journal .
Abrams was one of the attorneys who represented the New York Times in the civil case that argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block the media organization from publishing the Pentagon Papers .
And like Lewis , Abrams fixated on the four volumes that were kept confidential .
Ellsberg insisted Abrams was “ mistaken.
” He never had any discussion with Ellsberg while defending the right to publish before the Supreme Court so Ellsberg said Abrams could not possibly understand his motives very well .
In the decades since the Pentagon Papers were disclosed , Ellsberg shared how he faced a “ great deal ” of defamation and then “ neglect ” to someone who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was used as a “ foil ” against new revelations from WikiLeaks , “ which were supposedly very different.
” Such a distinction is “ misleading in terms of motive and effect.
” Ellsberg noted Assange withheld 15,000 files from the release of the Afghanistan War Logs .
He also requested assistance from the State Department and the Defense Department on redacting names , but they refused to help WikiLeaks redact a single document , even though it is a standard journalistic practice to consult officials to minimize harm .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed those names , ” Ellsberg declared .
Both the State and Defense Departments could have helped WikiLeaks remove the names of individuals , who prosecutors insist were negatively impacted .
Yet , rather than take steps to protect individuals , Ellsberg suggested these government agencies chose to “ preserve the possibility of charging Mr Assange with precisely the charges ” he faces now .
Not a single person has been identified by the U.S. government when they talk about deaths , physical harm , or incarceration that were linked to the WikiLeaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it was his view that any harm to individuals was the fault of the American government for letting Assange publish material without redactions .
Ellsberg indicated they bear “ heavy responsibility.
” Lewis attempted to trap Ellsberg into conceding Assange had engaged in conduct that resulted in grave harm to vulnerable individuals .
He read multiple sections of an affidavit from Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg , who is in the Eastern District of Virginia where Assange was indicted .
It covered a laundry list of allegations : they named local Afghans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coalition forces , forced journalists and religious leaders to flee , led to harassment of Chinese academics labeled as “ rats , ” fueled violent threats against people who met with U.S. embassy staff , resulted in Iranians being identified and outed , and spurred violence by the Taliban .
“ How can you say honestly and in an unbiased way that there is no evidence that WikiLeaks put anyone in danger ?
” Lewis asked .
Ellsberg told Lewis he found the government ’ s assertions to be “ highly cynical.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was wrong , but it is his understanding that no one actually suffered harm as a result of these threats .
“ Did one of them suffer the carrying out of these threats ?
” Lewis replied the rules are you don ’ t get to ask the questions .
He tried to move on as Ellsberg insisted he be allowed to provide the rest of his answer , but Judge Vanessa Baraitser would not let Ellsberg complete his response .
It deeply upset Assange , who spoke from inside the glass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baraitser reminded him not to interrupt proceedings as Edward Fitzgerald , a defense attorney , attempted to convince the court that Ellsberg should be able to finish his answer .
Lewis continued , “ Is it your position there was absolutely no danger caused by publishing the unredacted names of these informants ?
” In response , Ellsberg said the U.S. government is “ extremely cynical in pretending its concerned for these people.
” It has displayed “ contempt for Middle Easterners ” throughout the last 19 years .
As Lewis insisted one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Syrians named in the WikiLeaks publications were murdered or forced to flee , Ellsberg refused to accept this presumption .
“ I ’ m sorry , sir , but it doesn ’ t seem to be at all obvious that this small fraction of people that have been murdered in the course of both sides of conflicts can be attributed to WikiLeaks disclosures , ” Ellsberg stated .
If the Taliban had disappeared someone , Ellsberg said that would be a seriously harmful consequence .
“ I am not aware of one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” At no point did the lead prosecutor offer any specific example of a death , and so the record remains as it has been since Chelsea Manning was put on trial .
The government has no evidence that anyone was ever killed as a result of transparency forced by WikiLeaks .
Ellsberg informed the court his motive was no different from Assange ’ s motive .
The Espionage Act charges that Assange faces are not meaningfully different either .
And , in fact , he faced efforts by the government to wiretap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while in the Ecuador embassy in London .
Ellsberg recalled that he did not tell the public what led him to disclose the Pentagon Papers because he expected to be able to testify about his motive during his trial .
When his lawyer asked him why he copied the Pentagon Papers , the prosecution immediately objected .
Each time his lawyer tried to rephrase the question , the court refused to permit him to tell the jury “ why he had done what he ’ d done.
” Federal courts continue to handle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The notion of motive or extenuating circumstances is irrelevant , ” Ellsberg added .
“ The meaning of which is I did not get a fair trial , despite a very intelligent and conscientious judge .
No one since me has had a fair trial.
” “ Julian Assange could not get a remotely fair trial under those charges in the United States , ” Ellsberg concluded .
Photo of Daniel Ellsberg by Christopher Michel *** [ NOTE : John Goetz , an investigative journalist who worked for Der Spiegel in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizen Khaled el-Masri , who the CIA kidnapped and tortured .
He described how WikiLeaks disclosures helped El-Masri and provided support for a statement El-Masri has submitted to the court .
When El-Masri ’ s statement is read into the record or made public , I will cover this important aspect of the extradition trial in full . ]

Opponents of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange often hold up Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg as an example of someone who was responsible for a good leak. They insist WikiLeaks is not like the Pentagon Papers because supposedly Assange was reckless with sensitive documents.
On the seventh day of an extradition trial against Assange, Ellsberg dismantled this false narrative and outlined for a British magistrate court why Assange would not receive a fair trial in the United States.
Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that, as alleged in the indictment, is written like an Espionage Act offense.
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information, as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government. It targets common practices in news gathering, which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world.
James Lewis, a prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service who represents the U.S. government, told Ellsberg, “When you published the Pentagon Papers, you were very careful in what you provided to the media.”
The lead prosecutor highlighted the fact that Ellsberg withheld four volumes of the Pentagon Papers that he did not want published because they may have impacted diplomatic efforts to end the Vietnam War. However, Ellsberg’s decision to withhold those volumes had nothing to do with protecting the names of U.S. intelligence sources.
As Ellsberg described for the court, the 4,000 pages of documents he disclosed to the media contained thousands of names of Americans, Vietnamese, and North Vietnamese. There was even a clandestine CIA officer, who was named.
Nowhere in the Pentagon Papers was an “adequate justification for the killing that we were doing,” Ellsberg said. “I was afraid if I redacted or withheld anything at all it would be inferred I left out” the good reasons why the U.S. was pursuing the Vietnam War.
Ellsberg was concerned about revealing the name of a clandestine CIA officer, though he mentioned the individual was well-known in South Vietnam. Had he published the name of the officer today, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act could have easily been used to prosecute him. But he left it in the documents so no one could make inferences about redacted sections that may undermine what he exposed.
Like Assange, Ellsberg wanted the public to have a complete record.
This did not exactly distinguish Ellsberg from Assange so Lewis explicitly highlighted an article, “Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike The Pentagon Papers,” by attorney Floyd Abrams, which he wrote for the Wall Street Journal.
Abrams was one of the attorneys who represented the New York Times in the civil case that argued the government should not be able to block the media organization from publishing the Pentagon Papers. And like Lewis, Abrams fixated on the four volumes that were kept confidential.
Ellsberg insisted Abrams was “mistaken.” He never had any discussion with Ellsberg while defending the right to publish before the Supreme Court so Ellsberg said Abrams could not possibly understand his motives very well.
In the decades since the Pentagon Papers were disclosed, Ellsberg shared how he faced a “great deal” of defamation and then “neglect” to someone who was mentioned as a “clear patriot.” He was used as a “foil” against new revelations from WikiLeaks, “which were supposedly very different.” Such a distinction is “misleading in terms of motive and effect.”
Ellsberg noted Assange withheld 15,000 files from the release of the Afghanistan War Logs. He also requested assistance from the State Department and the Defense Department on redacting names, but they refused to help WikiLeaks redact a single document, even though it is a standard journalistic practice to consult officials to minimize harm.
“I have no doubt that Julian would have removed those names,” Ellsberg declared. Both the State and Defense Departments could have helped WikiLeaks remove the names of individuals, who prosecutors insist were negatively impacted.
Yet, rather than take steps to protect individuals, Ellsberg suggested these government agencies chose to “preserve the possibility of charging Mr Assange with precisely the charges” he faces now.
Not a single person has been identified by the U.S. government when they talk about deaths, physical harm, or incarceration that were linked to the WikiLeaks publications.
The lead prosecutor asked Ellsberg if it was his view that any harm to individuals was the fault of the American government for letting Assange publish material without redactions.
Ellsberg indicated they bear “heavy responsibility.”
Lewis attempted to trap Ellsberg into conceding Assange had engaged in conduct that resulted in grave harm to vulnerable individuals. He read multiple sections of an affidavit from Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg, who is in the Eastern District of Virginia where Assange was indicted.
It covered a laundry list of allegations: they named local Afghans and Iraqis that were providing information to coalition forces, forced journalists and religious leaders to flee, led to harassment of Chinese academics labeled as “rats,” fueled violent threats against people who met with U.S. embassy staff, resulted in Iranians being identified and outed, and spurred violence by the Taliban.
“How can you say honestly and in an unbiased way that there is no evidence that WikiLeaks put anyone in danger?” Lewis asked.
Ellsberg told Lewis he found the government’s assertions to be “highly cynical.” He invited Lewis to correct him if he was wrong, but it is his understanding that no one actually suffered harm as a result of these threats. “Did one of them suffer the carrying out of these threats?”
Lewis replied the rules are you don’t get to ask the questions. He tried to move on as Ellsberg insisted he be allowed to provide the rest of his answer, but Judge Vanessa Baraitser would not let Ellsberg complete his response.
It deeply upset Assange, who spoke from inside the glass box where he sits each day. Baraitser reminded him not to interrupt proceedings as Edward Fitzgerald, a defense attorney, attempted to convince the court that Ellsberg should be able to finish his answer.
Lewis continued, “Is it your position there was absolutely no danger caused by publishing the unredacted names of these informants?”
In response, Ellsberg said the U.S. government is “extremely cynical in pretending its concerned for these people.” It has displayed “contempt for Middle Easterners” throughout the last 19 years.
As Lewis insisted one had to conclude Iraqis, Afghans, or Syrians named in the WikiLeaks publications were murdered or forced to flee, Ellsberg refused to accept this presumption.
“I’m sorry, sir, but it doesn’t seem to be at all obvious that this small fraction of people that have been murdered in the course of both sides of conflicts can be attributed to WikiLeaks disclosures,” Ellsberg stated.
If the Taliban had disappeared someone, Ellsberg said that would be a seriously harmful consequence. “I am not aware of one single instance in the last 10 years.”
At no point did the lead prosecutor offer any specific example of a death, and so the record remains as it has been since Chelsea Manning was put on trial. The government has no evidence that anyone was ever killed as a result of transparency forced by WikiLeaks.
Ellsberg informed the court his motive was no different from Assange’s motive. The Espionage Act charges that Assange faces are not meaningfully different either. And, in fact, he faced efforts by the government to wiretap and incapacitate him just like Assange did while in the Ecuador embassy in London.
Ellsberg recalled that he did not tell the public what led him to disclose the Pentagon Papers because he expected to be able to testify about his motive during his trial.
When his lawyer asked him why he copied the Pentagon Papers, the prosecution immediately objected. Each time his lawyer tried to rephrase the question, the court refused to permit him to tell the jury “why he had done what he’d done.”
Federal courts continue to handle Espionage Act cases in the same manner. “The notion of motive or extenuating circumstances is irrelevant,” Ellsberg added.
“The meaning of which is I did not get a fair trial, despite a very intelligent and conscientious judge. No one since me has had a fair trial.”
“Julian Assange could not get a remotely fair trial under those charges in the United States,” Ellsberg concluded.
Photo of Daniel Ellsberg by Christopher Michel
***
[NOTE: John Goetz, an investigative journalist who worked for Der Spiegel in 2010-2011, gave crucial testimony on German citizen Khaled el-Masri, who the CIA kidnapped and tortured. He described how WikiLeaks disclosures helped El-Masri and provided support for a statement El-Masri has submitted to the court. When El-Masri’s statement is read into the record or made public, I will cover this important aspect of the extradition trial in full.]


shadowproof--2020-09-15--Witnesses At Extradition Trial Say Assange Could Spend Rest Of His Life In US Prison

Witnesses At Extradition Trial Say Assange Could Spend Rest Of His Life In US Prison During an extradition trial , witnesses for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s legal team said he could spend the rest of his life in a federal prison in the United States if convicted of all the offenses he faces .
Judge Vanessa Baraitser , the presiding British judge , also heard testimony related to how authorities in the U.S. government would likely pressure Assange to plead guilty instead of going to trial .
Assange , who is 49 years-old , is accused of 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that , as alleged in the indictment , is written like an Espionage Act offense .
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information , as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government .
It targets common practices in news gathering , which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world .
Eric Lewis , a U.S. defense attorney , said the “ base level ” for a sentence if Assange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be about eight to 10 years .
However , Assange pled guilty to 24 charges in a case brought against in Australia for allegedly hacking into Nortel , a Canadian telecommunications company .
That criminal history could potentially increase his sentence .
Often the U.S. government requests “ adjustments , ” or that a judge applies factors to the sentence , which can alter the length of the sentence .
“ If the defendant was the organizer or leader of criminal activity that involved 5 or more participants that was otherwise expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be imposed .
He faces conspiracy charges , where this could be applied , making the sentence at least 12 to 15 years in prison .
The most recent indictment involves Sigurdur “ Siggi ” Thordarson , who worked as an FBI informant and was convicted of multiple crimes in Iceland .
But he was a minor when he became involved in acts Assange allegedly committed so that could increase the sentence to 15 years and eight months on the low end and 19 years and seven months on the high end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an adjustment “ commonly added to people who seem to have special abilities that help them commit the crime.
” “ I would think that Mr. Assange ’ s technical proficiency , ” would qualify , Lewis said .
So , prosecutors could increase his sentence to 19 years and five months on the low end or 24 years and five months on the high end .
Two other enhancements might be applied .
They relate to obstruction and the naming of U.S. “ human intelligence sources , ” as well as U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who may consider themselves “ victims.
” If an enhancement was added for attempting to elude the investigation of a crime , the sentence would increase to 24 years and four months on the low end and 30 years and five months on the high end .
An enhancement for exposing the identities of intelligence sources or embassy officials would lead to a life sentence .
However , Lewis indicated this would exceed what the statutory maximum allows so it would likely be reduced to a 175-year sentence .
The federal court would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sentence for each count cumulatively rather than concurrently .
Similarly , Thomas Durkin , a U.S. defense attorney , testified that Assange could face anywhere from 19 and a half years to a life sentence .
A life sentence may seem extreme , but it is well within the bounds of sentencing guidelines , which means what prosecutors promote as a “ lenient ” sentence could be a sentence of 30-40 years in prison .
Assange would face immense pressure to plead guilty to offenses , especially if he was kept in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his trial that amounted to solitary confinement .
For someone whose mental and physical health has already deteriorated , he would be vulnerable to prosecutors that may coerce him to plead guilty .
If he was willing to expose confidential sources or assist FBI investigators , they could offer to end cruel and inhuman treatment or reduce his potential sentence .
The federal court system , as Durkin testified , imposes a “ trial tax.
” A defendant , especially one accused of jeopardizing US national security , is penalized if they go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Lewis outlined , “ Features unique to the U.S. criminal justice system , including sentences longer than are found elsewhere in the world ( for example , sentences that run longer than a hundred years , life without parole , the death penalty , and a harsh system of ‘ mandatory minimum ’ sentences that mean judges often have little discretion to account for individual mitigating factors ) and the unparalleled power of individuals prosecutors over charging decisions combine to make plea bargaining particularly coercive in that context.
” Someone who pleads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjustment that reduces a sentence considerably .
Assange could quickly go from a 24-year sentence to a 17-year sentence .
This could be the difference between seeing his partner Stella Morris and his children outside of prison before he dies and never having a private moment with them again .
Former CIA Director Leon Panetta , who was part of President Barack Obama ’ s administration , appeared in a documentary from the German public broadcaster ARD called , “ The USA against Assange.
” Panetta revealed the game that government officials in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing .
“ All you can do is hope that you can ultimately take action against those that were involved in revealing that information so you can send a message to others not to do the same thing , ” Panetta declared .
As with the war on whistleblowers waged by the Obama administration , the Trump administration , and those who support this prosecution , encourage the expansion of a front in a war on journalism .
A dangerous precedent has already been set simply because the Justice Department indicted Assange , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and successfully transports Assange to the United States for an Espionage Act trial , it may be even more difficult to prevent an outcome that does irreparable damage to First Amendment right , which far too many in the news media seem to take for granted .

During an extradition trial, witnesses for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s legal team said he could spend the rest of his life in a federal prison in the United States if convicted of all the offenses he faces.
Judge Vanessa Baraitser, the presiding British judge, also heard testimony related to how authorities in the U.S. government would likely pressure Assange to plead guilty instead of going to trial.
Assange, who is 49 years-old, is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that, as alleged in the indictment, is written like an Espionage Act offense.
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information, as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government. It targets common practices in news gathering, which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world.
Eric Lewis, a U.S. defense attorney, said the “base level” for a sentence if Assange was convicted of all the above offenses would be about eight to 10 years. However, Assange pled guilty to 24 charges in a case brought against in Australia for allegedly hacking into Nortel, a Canadian telecommunications company. That criminal history could potentially increase his sentence.
Often the U.S. government requests “adjustments,” or that a judge applies factors to the sentence, which can alter the length of the sentence.
“If the defendant was the organizer or leader of criminal activity that involved 5 or more participants that was otherwise expensive,” Lewis said, an adjustment could be imposed. He faces conspiracy charges, where this could be applied, making the sentence at least 12 to 15 years in prison.
The most recent indictment involves Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson, who worked as an FBI informant and was convicted of multiple crimes in Iceland. But he was a minor when he became involved in acts Assange allegedly committed so that could increase the sentence to 15 years and eight months on the low end and 19 years and seven months on the high end.
According to Lewis, there is an adjustment “commonly added to people who seem to have special abilities that help them commit the crime.”
“I would think that Mr. Assange’s technical proficiency,” would qualify, Lewis said. So, prosecutors could increase his sentence to 19 years and five months on the low end or 24 years and five months on the high end.
Two other enhancements might be applied. They relate to obstruction and the naming of U.S. “human intelligence sources,” as well as U.S. officials who worked in State Department embassies who may consider themselves “victims.”
If an enhancement was added for attempting to elude the investigation of a crime, the sentence would increase to 24 years and four months on the low end and 30 years and five months on the high end.
An enhancement for exposing the identities of intelligence sources or embassy officials would lead to a life sentence. However, Lewis indicated this would exceed what the statutory maximum allows so it would likely be reduced to a 175-year sentence.
The federal court would have the power to make Assange serve a sentence for each count cumulatively rather than concurrently.
Similarly, Thomas Durkin, a U.S. defense attorney, testified that Assange could face anywhere from 19 and a half years to a life sentence.
A life sentence may seem extreme, but it is well within the bounds of sentencing guidelines, which means what prosecutors promote as a “lenient” sentence could be a sentence of 30-40 years in prison.
Assange would face immense pressure to plead guilty to offenses, especially if he was kept in conditions in a U.S. facility prior to his trial that amounted to solitary confinement.
For someone whose mental and physical health has already deteriorated, he would be vulnerable to prosecutors that may coerce him to plead guilty. If he was willing to expose confidential sources or assist FBI investigators, they could offer to end cruel and inhuman treatment or reduce his potential sentence.
The federal court system, as Durkin testified, imposes a “trial tax.” A defendant, especially one accused of jeopardizing US national security, is penalized if they go to trial.
In his submitted testimony, Lewis outlined, “Features unique to the U.S. criminal justice system, including sentences longer than are found elsewhere in the world (for example, sentences that run longer than a hundred years, life without parole, the death penalty, and a harsh system of ‘mandatory minimum’ sentences that mean judges often have little discretion to account for individual mitigating factors) and the unparalleled power of individuals prosecutors over charging decisions combine to make plea bargaining particularly coercive in that context.”
Someone who pleads guilty before trial can benefit from an adjustment that reduces a sentence considerably. Assange could quickly go from a 24-year sentence to a 17-year sentence. This could be the difference between seeing his partner Stella Morris and his children outside of prison before he dies and never having a private moment with them again.
Former CIA Director Leon Panetta, who was part of President Barack Obama’s administration, appeared in a documentary from the German public broadcaster ARD called, “The USA against Assange.” Panetta revealed the game that government officials in President Donald Trump’s administration are playing.
“All you can do is hope that you can ultimately take action against those that were involved in revealing that information so you can send a message to others not to do the same thing,” Panetta declared.
As with the war on whistleblowers waged by the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and those who support this prosecution, encourage the expansion of a front in a war on journalism.
A dangerous precedent has already been set simply because the Justice Department indicted Assange, but if the U.S. government wins extradition and successfully transports Assange to the United States for an Espionage Act trial, it may be even more difficult to prevent an outcome that does irreparable damage to First Amendment right, which far too many in the news media seem to take for granted.


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

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

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


shadowproof--2020-09-18--Khaled El Masri Stands Up To CIA Intimidation, Supports Assange During Extradition Trial

Khaled El Masri Stands Up To CIA Intimidation , Supports Assange During Extradition Trial Khaled El Masri , a survivor of CIA kidnapping , torture , rendition , and detention , submitted testimony in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during his extradition trial .
The Central Criminal Court in London was prepared for El Masri to testify .
An interpreter was lined up for the ninth day of proceedings .
However , technical problems prevented him from addressing the court beyond his written statement .
Prosecutors also objected to El Masri giving live testimony .
According to Court News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange to stand up and declare , “ I will not accept you censoring a torture victim ’ s statement to this court.
” El Masri ’ s testimony directly relates to the defense argument that Assange published classified information from the United States in order to reveal abuses and misconduct , such as torture and war crimes .
In the United Kingdom , Assange ’ s legal team has been allowed to enter this evidence into the public record .
However , during a potential trial in the United States , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Espionage Act does not allow a public interest defense .
Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that , as alleged in the indictment , is written like an Espionage Act offense .
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information , as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government .
It targets common practices in newsgathering , which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I record here my belief that without dedicated and brave exposure of the state secrets in question what happened to me would never have been acknowledged and understood.
” He added threats and intimidation are “ not diminishing but expanding for all concerned.
” “ I nevertheless believe that the exposure of what happened was necessary not just for myself but for law and justice worldwide .
My story is not yet concluded.
” As El Masri noted , he submited testimony because “ WikiLeaks publications were relied on by the [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obtaining the redress ” he received .
While reading parts of El Masri ’ s statement for the court , defense attorney Mark Summers said that , as a result of cables , it is known that the German government bowed to pressure from the U.S. to not seek the extradition of the CIA rendition team .
El Masri also mentioned the WikiLeaks cables similarly showed that the U.S. government interfered in a judicial investigation in Germany and in Spain .
( The rendition flight in question traveled from Palma airport in Spain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parliamentary investigation , but that did not prevent El Masri from facing what he described as “ impediments ” to ascertaining the truth , “ including via witnesses whose details ” he learned about while in prison in Afghanistan .
El Masri recalled incidents since his rendition and torture that have caused him fear , such as “ being suddenly blocked on the motorway by cars , unknown strangers approaching my children , ” and his complaints to police leading them trying to have him committed to a “ hospital for the mentally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endured extended and repeated hostile experiences over many years , ” El Masri shared .
“ These have been fully documented , and I therefore do not go into them in detail in this statement.
” He mentioned the CIA told him he would be spied upon following his release , a fact an Inspector General report confirmed : The CIA Torture and Rendition of El Masri By submitting testimony in Assange ’ s extradition trial , El Masri took a great risk .
It is already known that the CIA supported UC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in an espionage operation that targeted Assange while he was living under political asylum in the Ecuador Embassy in London .
El Masri has also been denied any semblance of justice by the U.S. government for what was done to him .
Therefore , while the details of what happened to El Masri are well-known , I ’ ll recount what was summarized in his statement .
At the Macedonian border , El Masri was kidnapped , detained , and held incommunicado and abused for 23 days .
On January 23 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and blindfolded him at Skopje Airport .
A CIA rendition team “ physically overwhelmed ” El Masri and cut off all his clothes except his blindfold .
The European Court of Human Rights ( ECHR ) confirmed nine years after that El Masri was “ severely beaten , sodomized , shackled , and hooded , and subjected total sensory deprivation—carried out in the presence of state officials of Macedonia and within its jurisdiction.
” Macedonia ’ s “ government was consequently responsible for those acts performed by foreign officials…Those measures had been used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause Mr. Masri severe pain and suffering in order to obtain information , ” the ECHR additionally found .
When his blindfold was removed , El Masri recalled flash photography “ temporarily blinded ” him .
He then saw seven or eight men wearing black and black masks .
They put him in a diaper and tracksuit with a bag over his head and earmuffs .
He was shackled and marched to aircraft .
“ On the plane , I was spread-eagled and my limbs tied to the sides of the aircraft .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I was unconscious for most of the journey , ” according to El Masri .
El Masri later learned he was in Afghanistan .
He was held incommunicado in a “ cold concrete cell ” in winter .
“ Humiliated , stripped naked , insulted , and threatened.
” He was interrogated , and in March 2004 , he initiated a hunger strike .
On the 34th day of the hunger strike , El Masri said he was dragged from the cell to an interrogation room , “ tied to a chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ painfully forced through [ his ] nose.
” El Masri discovered later that the CIA knew his detention was a result of “ mistaken identity.
” They understood he should be released but kept him detained for several more months .
By May 2004 , El Masri learned he would be released .
He was interrogated once more and “ warned as a condition ” of his release that he was “ never to mention what happened ” or there would be consequences .
El Masri was blindfolded and shackled — again—on May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his cell , handed the suitcase he arrived with in Skopje , and told to change back into the clothes he had in Macedonia .
Then , El Masri was brought to an aircraft and subject to what can only be described as a reverse rendition .
He was blindfolded , earmuffed , and chained to a seat .
He was informed he would eventually land in a European country and then be allowed to return to Germany .
The plane landed in Albania .
He believed when he landed he would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him why he was in Albania with no permission because he had a German passport .
He said he didn ’ t know where he was .
Without WikiLeaks , The Truth Of What Happened To El-Masri Would Still Be Buried On September 16 , John Goetz , a German journalist who worked for Der Spiegel from 2010-2011 , provided a statement to the court to help reinforce El Masri ’ s testimony .
“ The investigation into what happened to him was as difficult as anything I have worked on , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years later , when WikiLeaks published U.S. diplomatic cables in 2010-2011 , that I finally found an explanation about why there were so many difficulties during the investigation .
It revealed not only that significant information had been suppressed , but I finally understood why there were no repercussions when that information was revealed.
” “ The U.S. diplomatic cables revealed the extent of pressure brought upon the German authorities ( and in parallel , relevant Spanish authorities ) not to act upon the clear evidence of criminal acts by the USA even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added .
“ As is clear from his statement , ” Goetz stated , El Masri ’ s “ ordeal did not end in 2004 after he found himself again in Germany .
I have maintained contact with Mr. El Masri since the time of my investigation and confirm , in addition to the accuracy of his account of his rendition and torture in 2004 that what he describes of his frustrated quest for acknowledgment by those in a position to do so can also be corroborated.
” “ Every impediment has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriate resolution and conclusion of his case including acceptance and responsibility by the primary perpetrator of the atrocities against him , the USA.
” “ The impediments have taken a further and disturbing course to this day , with threats and intimidatory measures being announced by the relevant minister , U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo , threatening retribution upon those party to bringing cases ( of which Mr El-Masri ’ s case is currently one ) to the International Criminal Court , ” Goetz contended .
Goetz wrote , “ The intimidation surrounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past as he described , at times covert , is now manifestly overt.
” “ I note that the denial of the ‘ right to truth ’ referred to by the European Court in relation to Mr. El Masri has had severe and enduring effects upon Mr. El Masri and his family .
It remains difficult even for those closely reporting on the history of the last 15 years for Mr. El Masri to fully explain the extent of his continuing trauma and the need for it to be addressed and recognized by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' ” Goetz maintained .
Goetz , who traveled to North Carolina to confront members of the CIA team behind El Masri ’ s rendition , further declared , “ Without publication of information that the U.S. government intended to be kept secret for national security reasons , the entire truth would still be buried .
Because it was only when reading the diplomatic cables that we saw the role the U.S government was playing behind the scene .
The publication of the cables “ threw light on the pressures and bullying techniques @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one country to prevent the prosecution of CIA agents involved [ in the El Masri case ] .
” Goetz concluded , “ These detailed revelations threw light on otherwise inexplicable actions by the countries involved .
Together with other information [ related to ] the Afghan/Iraq Wars and Guantanamo Bay , and in relation to other renditions and rendition flights , the full picture could finally be seen and understood .
”

Khaled El Masri, a survivor of CIA kidnapping, torture, rendition, and detention, submitted testimony in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during his extradition trial.
The Central Criminal Court in London was prepared for El Masri to testify. An interpreter was lined up for the ninth day of proceedings. However, technical problems prevented him from addressing the court beyond his written statement.
Prosecutors also objected to El Masri giving live testimony. According to Court News UK reporter Charlie Jones, that prompted Assange to stand up and declare, “I will not accept you censoring a torture victim’s statement to this court.”
El Masri’s testimony directly relates to the defense argument that Assange published classified information from the United States in order to reveal abuses and misconduct, such as torture and war crimes.
In the United Kingdom, Assange’s legal team has been allowed to enter this evidence into the public record. However, during a potential trial in the United States, it will likely be excluded as irrelevant because the Espionage Act does not allow a public interest defense.
Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that, as alleged in the indictment, is written like an Espionage Act offense.
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information, as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government. It targets common practices in newsgathering, which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world.
El Masri declared, “I record here my belief that without dedicated and brave exposure of the state secrets in question what happened to me would never have been acknowledged and understood.” He added threats and intimidation are “not diminishing but expanding for all concerned.”
“I nevertheless believe that the exposure of what happened was necessary not just for myself but for law and justice worldwide. My story is not yet concluded.”
As El Masri noted, he submited testimony because “WikiLeaks publications were relied on by the [European Court of Human Rights] in obtaining the redress” he received.
While reading parts of El Masri’s statement for the court, defense attorney Mark Summers said that, as a result of cables, it is known that the German government bowed to pressure from the U.S. to not seek the extradition of the CIA rendition team.
El Masri also mentioned the WikiLeaks cables similarly showed that the U.S. government interfered in a judicial investigation in Germany and in Spain. (The rendition flight in question traveled from Palma airport in Spain.)
Media scrutiny led to a parliamentary investigation, but that did not prevent El Masri from facing what he described as “impediments” to ascertaining the truth, “including via witnesses whose details” he learned about while in prison in Afghanistan.
El Masri recalled incidents since his rendition and torture that have caused him fear, such as “being suddenly blocked on the motorway by cars, unknown strangers approaching my children,” and his complaints to police leading them trying to have him committed to a “hospital for the mentally ill.”
“I and my family endured extended and repeated hostile experiences over many years,” El Masri shared. “These have been fully documented, and I therefore do not go into them in detail in this statement.”
He mentioned the CIA told him he would be spied upon following his release, a fact an Inspector General report confirmed:
…The following evening, these officers met again with el Masri and related conditions for his release which included…that he would not reveal his experiences to the media or local authority; that he would accept that his post release activities would be monitored and that any breach of his pledge would have consequences.
The CIA Torture and Rendition of El Masri
By submitting testimony in Assange’s extradition trial, El Masri took a great risk. It is already known that the CIA supported UC Global, a Spanish private security company, in an espionage operation that targeted Assange while he was living under political asylum in the Ecuador Embassy in London.
El Masri has also been denied any semblance of justice by the U.S. government for what was done to him.
Therefore, while the details of what happened to El Masri are well-known, I’ll recount what was summarized in his statement.
At the Macedonian border, El Masri was kidnapped, detained, and held incommunicado and abused for 23 days. On January 23, 2004, a CIA rendition team handcuffed and blindfolded him at Skopje Airport.
A CIA rendition team “physically overwhelmed” El Masri and cut off all his clothes except his blindfold.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) confirmed nine years after that El Masri was “severely beaten, sodomized, shackled, and hooded, and subjected total sensory deprivation—carried out in the presence of state officials of Macedonia and within its jurisdiction.”
Macedonia’s “government was consequently responsible for those acts performed by foreign officials…Those measures had been used with premeditation, the aim being to cause Mr. Masri severe pain and suffering in order to obtain information,” the ECHR additionally found.
When his blindfold was removed, El Masri recalled flash photography “temporarily blinded” him. He then saw seven or eight men wearing black and black masks. They put him in a diaper and tracksuit with a bag over his head and earmuffs. He was shackled and marched to aircraft.
“On the plane, I was spread-eagled and my limbs tied to the sides of the aircraft. I was given injections and an anesthetic. I was unconscious for most of the journey,” according to El Masri.
El Masri later learned he was in Afghanistan. He was held incommunicado in a “cold concrete cell” in winter. “Humiliated, stripped naked, insulted, and threatened.” He was interrogated, and in March 2004, he initiated a hunger strike.
On the 34th day of the hunger strike, El Masri said he was dragged from the cell to an interrogation room, “tied to a chair, and a tube [was] painfully forced through [his] nose.”
El Masri discovered later that the CIA knew his detention was a result of “mistaken identity.” They understood he should be released but kept him detained for several more months.
By May 2004, El Masri learned he would be released. He was interrogated once more and “warned as a condition” of his release that he was “never to mention what happened” or there would be consequences.
El Masri was blindfolded and shackled — again—on May 28. He was led out of his cell, handed the suitcase he arrived with in Skopje, and told to change back into the clothes he had in Macedonia.
Then, El Masri was brought to an aircraft and subject to what can only be described as a reverse rendition. He was blindfolded, earmuffed, and chained to a seat. He was informed he would eventually land in a European country and then be allowed to return to Germany.
The plane landed in Albania. He believed when he landed he would be shot in the back. They asked him why he was in Albania with no permission because he had a German passport. He said he didn’t know where he was.
Without WikiLeaks, The Truth Of What Happened To El-Masri Would Still Be Buried
On September 16, John Goetz, a German journalist who worked for Der Spiegel from 2010-2011, provided a statement to the court to help reinforce El Masri’s testimony.
“The investigation into what happened to him was as difficult as anything I have worked on,” Goetz declared. “It was only years later, when WikiLeaks published U.S. diplomatic cables in 2010-2011, that I finally found an explanation about why there were so many difficulties during the investigation. It revealed not only that significant information had been suppressed, but I finally understood why there were no repercussions when that information was revealed.”
“The U.S. diplomatic cables revealed the extent of pressure brought upon the German authorities (and in parallel, relevant Spanish authorities) not to act upon the clear evidence of criminal acts by the USA even though by then exposed,” Goetz added.
“As is clear from his statement,” Goetz stated, El Masri’s “ordeal did not end in 2004 after he found himself again in Germany. I have maintained contact with Mr. El Masri since the time of my investigation and confirm, in addition to the accuracy of his account of his rendition and torture in 2004 that what he describes of his frustrated quest for acknowledgment by those in a position to do so can also be corroborated.”
“Every impediment has been and continues to be placed in the appropriate resolution and conclusion of his case including acceptance and responsibility by the primary perpetrator of the atrocities against him, the USA.”
“The impediments have taken a further and disturbing course to this day, with threats and intimidatory measures being announced by the relevant minister, U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo, threatening retribution upon those party to bringing cases (of which Mr El-Masri’s case is currently one) to the International Criminal Court,” Goetz contended.
Goetz wrote, “The intimidation surrounding this case, frequently intruding in the past as he described, at times covert, is now manifestly overt.”
“I note that the denial of the ‘right to truth’ referred to by the European Court in relation to Mr. El Masri has had severe and enduring effects upon Mr. El Masri and his family. It remains difficult even for those closely reporting on the history of the last 15 years for Mr. El Masri to fully explain the extent of his continuing trauma and the need for it to be addressed and recognized by those responsible—to ‘acknowledge the truth,'” Goetz maintained.
Goetz, who traveled to North Carolina to confront members of the CIA team behind El Masri’s rendition, further declared, “Without publication of information that the U.S. government intended to be kept secret for national security reasons, the entire truth would still be buried. Because it was only when reading the diplomatic cables that we saw the role the U.S government was playing behind the scene.
The publication of the cables “threw light on the pressures and bullying techniques brought by the U.S. in more than one country to prevent the prosecution of CIA agents involved [in the El Masri case].”
Goetz concluded, “These detailed revelations threw light on otherwise inexplicable actions by the countries involved. Together with other information [related to] the Afghan/Iraq Wars and Guantanamo Bay, and in relation to other renditions and rendition flights, the full picture could finally be seen and understood.”