Author: Nathan

Categories
Julian Assange News

Emergency: Julian Assange has been arrested

Categories
Julian Assange News

Courage nominates Julian Assange for the 2019 GUE/NGL Award

Categories
Julian Assange News

The Guardian publishes fabricated claims of Paul Manafort visiting Assange

The Guardian has published claims from unnamed sources that Paul Manafort, former head of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, had “secret talks” with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on three occasions. These claims are completely false and the story has been fabricated.

The Embassy’s visitor logs – maintained by Ecuador – show no such visits, since they did not occur.

This is not the first time that The Guardian, and in particular its writer Luke Harding, have fabricated a story about Assange.

After widespread criticism from journalists across the political spectrum, The Guardian has begun to backpedal its story, adding “sources say” to the headline and editing hedging qualifications throughout the piece.

WikiLeaks is fundraising to file a lawsuit against The Guardian for libel. Contribute here.

Update: 3 December 2018

The Canary reports that former Consul to Ecuador Fidel Narváez “insisted that the claim that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is entirely false.” The Daily Dot reports as well.

The Guardian concealed third author of Manafort-Assange fabrication: Fernando Villavicencio, the CIA-connected advisor thought to potentially be The Guardian‘s source for the story, is actually listed on the article’s print edition byline.

Reactions

Follow Courage on Twitter for continuous updates and reactions.

Update: 

Original story

Categories
Julian Assange News

US has charged Julian Assange: reactions and coverage

See our ongoing liveblog of Julian Assange’s endangered situation in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London

The Washington Post reported this morning that a US Department of Justice prosecutor “inadvertently” disclosed the fact that the US has done what WikiLeaks and its supporters have warned it would do since 2010: charged Julian Assange:

The disclosure came in a filing in a case unrelated to Assange. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kellen S. Dwyer, urging a judge to keep the matter sealed, wrote that “due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.” Later, Dwyer wrote the charges would “need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested.”

From the document revealing the indictment:

3. The United States has considered alternatives less drastic than sealing,
including, for example, the possibility of redactions, and has determined that none would suffice to protect this investigation. Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.

5. The complaint, supporting affidavit, and arrest warrant as well as this motion and proposed order, would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter.

As the New York Times reports:

Barry Pollack, an American lawyer representing Mr. Assange, denounced the apparent development.

“The news that criminal charges have apparently been filed against Mr. Assange is even more troubling than the haphazard manner in which that information has been revealed,” Mr. Pollack wrote in an email. “The government bringing criminal charges against someone for publishing truthful information is a dangerous path for a democracy to take.”

Human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson, who has been advising Assange since 2010, spoke to Democracy Now! this morning to discuss the reported charges, warning that an Assange prosecution would endanger press freedoms worldwide

 

Robinson also spoke to MSNBC

MSNBC also interviewed Frank Figliuzzi, former Assistant Director for Counterintelligence at the Federal Bureau of Investigation under Obama (February 7, 2011 – July 31, 2012):

This has deep meaning also for me personally because I was in Washington at head quarters when the entire intelligence community was wrestling with what to do with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and the great debate about whether we should even treat them as a foreign power. That they were doing that much damage to us. […] Understand that our intelligence community has Wikileaks covered like a blanket — as if they are a foreign adversary.

Figliuzzi’s statements reflect the the US government’s intent to prosecute Assange for publishing all along, as his tenure with the FBI long pre-dates alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fact that the “entire intelligence community” was working on an Assange prosecution signals the amount of surveillance Assange and other members of WikiLeaks have been under. Ecuador has admitted to having spent 1 million pounds per year, most of it reportedly on the “security” inside the embassy which it has been revealed is tasked with spying on Assange’s activities.

A grave threat to press freedom worldwide

Glenn Greenwald writes, ‘As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom’

What has changed since that Obama-era consensus? Only one thing: in 2016, WikiLeaks published documents that reflected poorly on Democrats and the Clinton campaign rather than the Bush-era wars, rendering Democrats perfectly willing, indeed eager, to prioritize their personal contempt for Assange over any precepts of basic press freedoms, civil liberties, or Constitutional principles. It’s really just as simple – and as ignoble – as that.

It is this utterly craven and authoritarian mentality that is about to put Democrats of all sorts in bed with the most extremist and dangerous of the Trump faction as they unite to create precedents under which the publication of information – long held sacrosanct by anyone caring about press freedoms – can now be legally punished.

The ACLU’s Ben Wizner said:

In its report on the leaked charge, the New York Times wrote:

Though the legal move against Mr. Assange remained a mystery on Thursday, charges centering on the publication of information of public interest — even if it was obtained from Russian government hackers — would create a precedent with profound implications for press freedoms.

Update: the Times has updated its article on the charges to highlight press freedom issues:

Mr. Assange is not a traditional journalist, but what he does at WikiLeaks has also been difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from what traditional news organizations, like The New York Times, do every day: seek out and publish information that officials would prefer to be kept secret, including classified national security matters.

The Justice Department has never charged journalists with violating the law for doing their jobs. But in recent years, it has become far more common to charge officials with a crime for providing information to reporters. Depending on the facts, the case against Mr. Assange could set a precedent further chilling investigative journalism.

Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, has issued the following statement:

Any charges brought against WikiLeaks for their publishing activities pose a profound and incredibly dangerous threat to press freedom. Whether you like Assange or hate him, the theories used in a potential Espionage Act prosecution would threaten countless reporters at the New York Times, Washington Post, and the many other news outlets that report on government secrets all the time. While everyone will have to wait and see what the charges detail, it’s quite possible core First Amendment principles will be at stake in this case.

Human Rights Watch’s Executive Director Ken Roth:

Edward Snowden:

The Committee to Protect Journalists released a statement on the charges:

“We are closely monitoring reports that prosecutors have prepared a sealed indictment against Julian Assange,” said Alexandra Ellerbeck, CPJ’s North America program coordinator. “While the charges are not known, we would be concerned by a prosecution that construes publishing government documents as a crime. This would set a dangerous precedent that could harm all journalists, whether inside or outside the United States.”

Suit to unseal charges

The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press has filed a motion in the Eastern District of Virginia to unseal the U.S. government’s criminal charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange:

“It’s important that the public understand what these charges are, and there’s no longer any justification for keeping the criminal complaint, the docket, and other filings related to the prosecution sealed,” said Reporters Committee Executive Director Bruce Brown.

Loading ....
  /  

USA Today‘s James Bovard argues that Assange should be given a Presidential Medal of Freedom, in a reframing of the award’s purpose:

Because few things are more perilous to democracy than permitting politicians to coverup crimes, there should be a new Medal of Freedom category commending individuals who have done the most to expose official lies. This particular award could be differentiated by including a little steam whistle atop the medal — vivifying how leaks can prevent a political system from overheating or exploding.

Assange would deserve such a medal […]

Organizations like Wikileaks are among the best hopes for rescuing democracy from Leviathan. Unless we presume politicians have a divine right to deceive the governed, America should honor individuals who expose federal crimes. Whistleblowers should be especially welcome by anyone riled up over Trump’s lies.

Categories
Julian Assange News

Protection Action: Ecuadorian Hearing

On March 28, 2018, the government of Ecuador imposed a unilateral incommunication on Julian Assange. Mr. Assange’s ability to the communicate with the outside world was blocked both physically and by embassy and foreign ministry authorities for seven months:

  • 3 signal jammers installed by the embassy blocked phone and wifi signal.
  • All visits, other than legal visits, were refused by the embassy, including meetings requested by major human rights organisations, and members of parliament.
  • For months, Mr. Assange’s lawyers requested that the government provide the administrative or legal basis for the restrictive measures, in order to challenge their legality before the courts. The government refused to provide information that would allow him to challenge the measures before a court.

Ecuador’s President told AP: “if Mr Assange promises to stop emitting opinions on the politics of friendly nations like Spain or the United States then we have no problem with him going online.”

On 12 October 2018, the embassy delivered a “protocol” with explicit threats to revoke Mr. Assange’s asylum if Mr. Assange, or any of his guests, breached or were perceived to have breached, any of the 28 “rules” in the protocol. The rules provide that the embassy can seize Mr. Assange’s property or his visitors’ property and hand these to UK police, and report Mr. Assange’s visitors to UK authorities. The protocol requires the IMEI codes and serial numbers of electronic devices used inside the embassy. The private information required of visitors and Mr. Assange’s lawyers by the embassy is shared with undisclosed agencies.

The “protocol” also forbids Assange from doing journalism and expressing his opinions, under threat of losing his asylum.

The protocol appears in the context of a strong, supportive ruling by the Interamerican Court on Human Rights, setting out Ecuador’s obligations in relation to Mr. Assange (paras 178 onwards), which was announced amidst reports in the Sunday Times that the UK and Ecuador were reaching a “high level” agreement to breach Assange’s asylum by handing him over to UK police to be arrested.

Ecuador recently secured $1.1bn in loans. The US representative to the IMF told Ecuador in late 2017 that loans were conditional on Ecuador resolving the Assange and Chevron matters. Throughout the Summer pressure from US law-makers mounted on Ecuador to hand Assange over to the UK.

In June, President Moreno met with Vice-President Mike Pence. Moreno denied Assange had been discussed. The White House, on the other hand, stated:

Ahead of Pence’s visit, ten senators from both sides of the political divide urged the Vice President to pressure President Moreno over Assange. Ahead of the midterms, the ranking Democrat of House Foreign Relations Committee made an inflammatory demand directly to Ecuador’s president Moreno to hand Assange over to UK authorities. In the letter, Assange is called “a dangerous criminal and a threat to global security” and the letter says Ecuador that crucial bilateral relations in the area of commerce and security depend on Ecuador “resolv[ing] the significant challenge” of “the status of Julian Assange“.

The “protocol” (Spanish original, English, unofficial), if implemented in this manner, aims to circumvent the obligations set out in the Interamerican Court’s ruling with the pretext of violations of ’’protocol rules’. The protocol is a flagrant violation of the Interamerican Court’s decision.

The “protocol” and the forced, arbitrary incommunication imposed on Mr. Assange for seven months was the subject of a protective action measure before a court in Quito on 25 and 29 October 2018.

During the proceedings, Mr. Assange spoke to the court over videolink.

The judge refused to rule on the constitutionality of the government’s actions against Mr. Assange and said it was a matter for the Constitutional Court.

The judge declined to hear witnesses and declined to accept evidence documenting the embassy’s visitor ban.

On 30 October 2018 the case was appealed to the provincial court.

Application to the District Court for Protection Action measure

PDF - 163.2 kb
Accion de Proteccion

Amicus Curiae

During the proceedings five amicus curiae intervened: academics and human rights workers, all in favour of Mr. Assange’s application (Spanish):

PDF - 61.5 kb
Amicus Curiae Fernando Casado
PDF - 35.3 kb
Amicus Curiae Jaime Fabián Burbano Gutiérrez, Colectivo KolectiVOZ

 

Categories
Courage News News

Courage announcement – new director Nathan Fuller

The Trustees of the Courage Foundation are pleased to announce that they have appointed Nathan Fuller as Executive Director. Nathan has been with Courage since 2014.

We thank Naomi Colvin for her work as Courage Director over the last year, including the successful campaign to resist Lauri Love’s extradition to the US, which was widely publicised in the UK and abroad. Naomi joined Courage in 2014. We wish her all success.

Courage defends those who are subject to serious prosecution or persecution. It is designed to increase the power of defence campaigns through mutual aid, sharing basic financial and internet infrastructure and solidarity.

Categories
News Reality Winner

Reality Winner’s sentencing hearing scheduled for 23 August

A sentencing hearing has been scheduled for NSA whistleblower Reality Winner:

23 August 2018
10:00am ET
Federal Justice Center
United States District Court
600 James Brown Boulevard
Courtroom 2
Augusta, Georgia

Reality plead guilty in June in a deal in which the government agreed to recommend 63 months in prison, but this figure is only tentative. Sentencing is at the judge’s discretion and follows a sentencing investigation. At the hearing, Reality may choose to make a statement and bring forth character witnesses to mitigate her sentence.

Loading ....
  /  

 

Categories
Lauri Love News

Lauri Love’s forum bar precedent lives on

Categories
Legislation News

What needs changing in the EU’s draft whistleblower directive

Courage welcomes a strong set of proposals and recommends changes regarding national security cases, protecting anonymity and letting whistleblowers choose who they talk to

In April this year, the European Commission published the text of its draft whistleblower directive. This was something that campaigners had been working towards for years, partly due to the galvanising impact of the LuxLeaks revelations and the opposition to the European Trade Secrets Directive, both of which we have followed closely at Courage.

On the whole, the proposals are stronger than had been expected and there’s a lot in them that we can be wholly positive about. We are particularly happy to see that the draft Directive treats disclosures about privacy, potential data breaches and network security as whistleblowing, a clarification that is long overdue.

At the same time, we think there are some aspects of the draft Directive that could be improved and we’ve just submitted our explanation to the European Commission.

Here are the changes we would like to see:

At present, the draft whistleblower directive does nothing for national security whistleblowers, whose disclosures often put themselves at great risk. For example, we’ve seen in the past few days how bad things can get for whistleblowers like Reality Winner, and those in other countries also face the potential of severe penalties. Classification should never be used as a reason for covering up evidence of human rights abuses and, while cases like Thomas Drake’s show that internal channels by themselves are not the answer, we think the EU should follow the Council of Europe in getting member states to acknowledge that intelligence service personnel with concerns need to have somewhere to go to.

One of the most important protections a whistleblower can have is the ability to remain anonymous. This isn’t mentioned in the European Commission draft at the moment and it needs to be. At the very least, we think that the draft needs to ensure that whistleblowing reports that are submitted anonymously are treated as seriously as those submitted by other means.

A serious problem with the draft Directive is that it imposes too many restrictions on who a whistleblower can disclose to. Experience shows that, given the choice, the overwhelming majority of whistleblowers prefer to make their reports internally. We do not think that the minority whose complaints need to go straight to an external regulator, or the press, should be limited in that choice. In their public statements around the Directive, members of the European Commission have been clear that it is their intention to make sure the next Antoine Deltour receives proper protection and isn’t dragged through the courts. Unfortunately, we do not think the text achieves this aim at present.

Finally, while we agree that the fundamental rights of people who are the subject of whistleblowing disclosures need to be respected, there are a couple of provisions in the draft Directive that threaten to go too far in the other direction. We are concerned that these could dissuade future whistleblowers from coming forward or present new impediments to public interest reporting, all of which would completely undermine the aims of these proposals.

What next?

The draft Directive is currently being considered by several committees of the European Parliament, which will be in a position to suggest changes and put forward formal amendments to be considered by the Parliament as a whole. We think it is likely that amendments will tackle many of the issues we are concerned about and we will keep you updated as things progress.

Loading ....
  /  

Download

Categories
News Reality Winner

Whistleblower Reality Winner pleads guilty

Tentative agreement for 63 months in jail; sentencing hearing to come

Accused NSA whistleblower Reality Winner has changed her plea to guilty today in a hearing in Augusta, Georgia, in a tentative plea agreement carrying a sentence of 63 months, plus three years’ supervised release. Winner, a former Air Force translator, was arrested last year for disclosing a classified NSA report on attempted Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, and has been incarcerated in a Georgia county jail ever since.

The plea agreement is still tentative: a sentencing investigation begins now, with a court hearing to come during which Reality may choose to make a statement and bring forth character witnesses to mitigate her sentence.

Reality was initially charged under the Espionage Act, which carries a ten year prison sentence and $250,000 fine. The Espionage Act bars defendants from explaining themselves in court, so had Reality taken her case to trial, she would not have been allowed to argue that she wanted to inform the American people, that she knew the leak wouldn’t cause any harm, and that the government shouldn’t needlessly hide this information from its citizens.

Courage Director Naomi Colvin said:

The Espionage Act is a draconian, World War I-era law that equates whistleblowing with treason, and journalism with spying. It is beyond question that Reality’s disclosure of attacks on the integrity of elections was in the public interest: the US media has discussed little else for the past two years.

That the Espionage Act has forced yet another conscientious public servant into guaranteed prison time should make clear the urgency for reform. Courage extends love and solidarity to Reality and her family, and we will stand by them until she is free.