Julian Assange Out of Jail

In the weirdest set of moves yet, the U.S. government is trying to build a legal case against Assange.  I’ve rightly heard this compared to jailing Carl Bernstein for “the Deep Throat” leaks. Carl Bernstein was at least an American.

Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State Department files from a government computer system. If he did so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them.

Among materials prosecutors are studying is an online chat log in which Private Manning is said to claim that he had been directly communicating with Mr. Assange using an encrypted Internet conferencing service as the soldier was downloading government files. Private Manning is also said to have claimed that Mr. Assange gave him access to a dedicated server for uploading some of them to WikiLeaks.

Adrian Lamo, an ex-hacker in whom Private Manning confided and who eventually turned him in, said Private Manning detailed those interactions in instant-message conversations with him.

For some reason, Eric Holder is taking a bigger interest in this than he did in our breaking the Geneva Convention agreements on torture and the West Wing’s orders to assassinate a U.S. citizen abroad.  What a warped sense of Justice we’ve developed in this country!

Every one from Sweden to the Crown Prosecution service have argued against bail for Assange.    Sweden was not allowed to make any arguments or offer any evidence as is custom in British Courts.

There was an early sign that the day would go in Assange’s favour when Ouseley said: “The history of the way it [the case] has been dealt with by the Swedish prosecutors would give Mr Assange some basis that he might be acquitted following a trial.”

American legal action could further complicate the situation. As you hear in the video above, Assange vowed to continue his work.   Here’s one interesting result from the leaks of some of the cables.  CNN reports that Zimbabwe’s first lady is suing because it was leaked she had dealings in illegal diamonds. You may recall the blood diamond issue from the movie with Leonardo DiCaprio.

The cables in question, from the U.S. Embassy in Harare, claimed that Zimbabwe’s first lady was among the senior Zanu-PF and government officials who were gaining huge profits from the smuggling of diamonds in the eastern part of Zimbabwe.

“The diamonds that are sold to regime members and elites are sold for freshly printed Zimbabwean notes issued by the RBZ (Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe),” the paper quoted a 2008 cable as saying.

“The cables suggested that (the head of the bank, Gideon) Gono kept the money printing press running to finance the purchase of diamonds and this could have accelerated hyperinflation, which eventually rendered the Zimbabwe dollar worthless,” the newspaper charged.

Grace Mugabe said in the suit that the report published Sunday by The Standard was “false, scandalous, malicious and bent on damaging (her) reputation.”

The documents said the newspaper wrongly suggested that Grace Mugabe had “used her position as the First Lady to access diamonds clandestinely, enriching herself in circumstances in which the country was facing serious foreign currency shortages, which amounts should have been channeled to the fiscus.

AlterNet has an interesting interview up with peace activist Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the NYT during the Nixon years.  Ellsberg believes the law that Holder is using to try to prosecute Assange is unconstitutional.

Yet, as CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin pointed out earlier this month, the law no more shields journalists than anybody else from prosecution for the dissemination of classified information. For instance, in the case decided by the Supreme Court regarding the New York Times’ decision to publish the Pentagon Papers leaked by Ellsberg, the court held only that the government did not have the right to keep the Times from publishing the papers, but the government still had the right to prosecute the Times after classified information from the papers was published in its pages. So, why try to make a distinction, however polemical?

“The law they’re using makes no distinction between journalists, the press — it applies to readers of the New York Times, just as well as to the publishers, the journalists and the leakers,” Ellsberg explained. “The language of that law makes no distinction. Now, that’s why they’ve been reluctant to use it — because it’s so broad, that it’s almost clearly unconstitutional.”

“They have tried to use the law — mostly unsuccessfully — but they’ve tried to use the law against leakers,” Ellsberg continued. “They’ve never tried to use it against a publisher. So this would be a first.”

In other words, if the Justice Department can successfully brand Assange as something other than a journalist or a publisher, it would not appear to be violating the perception of freedom of expression held by most Americans.

Exactly.  We’re talking freedom of the Press here. The Republicans continue to shake their fists and spew weird diatribes at Assange.  The weirdest to date was the P Woman accusing Assange of being “un-American” which is some weird word salad given Assange is an Aussie.  Fred Thompson has been twittering up a storm on Michael Moore’s contributions to Assange’s bail. Something about Democrats not understanding real patriotism.  Same old Republican jingoism!   It does seems odd to me that a Democratic Attorney General would be following their lead, but hey,  these appear to be strange times for Democrats in deed.  To quote John Lennon: “Most peculiar Mama!”

Update: Since more Republican memes about Assange appear to be showing up in unlikely places–Remember, what they tried to do to Daniel Ellsberg?– I’m putting up some of the honors Assange has earned from the International Community.

Assange founded the WikiLeaks website in 2006 and serves on its advisory board. He has been involved in publishing material about extrajudicial killings in Kenya, for which he won the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award. He has also published material about toxic waste dumping in Africa, Church of Scientology manuals, Guantanamo Bay procedures, and banks such as Kaupthing and Julius Baer.[11] In 2010, he published classified details about US involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then, on 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks and its five media partners began publishing secret US diplomatic cables.[12] The White House has called Assange’s release of the diplomatic cables “reckless and dangerous”.[13]

For his work with WikiLeaks, Assange received the 2008 Economist Freedom of Expression Award and the 2010 Sam Adams Award. Utne Reader named him as one of the “25 Visionaries Who Are Changing Your World”. In 2010, New Statesman ranked Assange number 23 among the “The World’s 50 Most Influential Figures”.


24 Comments on “Julian Assange Out of Jail”

  1. Woman Voter says:

    WikiLeaks, The Espionage Act, and The Constitution
    Hearing/Congressman Conyers
    Dec, 16, 2010
    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Legaland
    ………

    Will the US start to prosecute and censor news organization as Senator Joe Lieberman and Congress Allen West are suggesting? It was interesting to see Conyers point out that without Leaks we would have never learned of some illegal and clearly immoral doings within government and gave case in point to illustrate the issues (Ashcroft and water boarding prisoners).

    • dakinikat says:

      I think that this is a serious threat to a free press.

      • Minkoff Minx says:

        My guess is that with the speed that the internet has in relaying and disseminating information, it has caused those who wish to silence the press to look for other ways of doing it.

      • Woman Voter says:

        The Fourth Estate must be protected, it must survive and the internet is like the ‘Ink Pen and the Presses’ of days gone by. I don’t fully have an understanding of this ‘Scientific Journalism’ and I have heard it called ‘Scientific Archeological Journalism’ too. The latter I was told required some sort of verification, preferably in hard copy or some data traced file, but my mind couldn’t wrap around the topic in it’s totality, but I got the gist of what they meant.

        It is my understanding that WikiLeaks is taking steps to try to protect names etc, but the amount of material is HUGE (no wonder the State Department said they wanted ‘their’ material back) and I still don’t think Bradley Manning could have done that himself, without someone with higher clearance.

        The Fourth Estate is vital to Free Democracies and vital to individual rights and vital to the peace process too. I was bothered today, that the MSNBC, CNN and FOX didn’t cover the Press Conference on Afghanistan, yet they will break in LIVE with a chase of some punk who stole a car and follow the chase for over half an hour. (((shaking head)))

      • bostonboomer says:

        I totally agree! I also find it very disturbing that at least one supposedly “liberal” website is posting articles that paint Assange as some kind of conspiracist bad guy.

        • Woman Voter says:

          Well, I think if Assange came to the US he would be tortured because some people seem to think that they can prove that he some how did the leaking even though he wasn’t here. I think it must be worrisome to know that maybe some within their inner circle have tired of the endless wars.

  2. paper doll says:

    I base this on nothing but a guess: There’s a group within the upper crust that wants us to go into Iran…and there’s a group that does not….Wikileaks is ammo
    in the war between the two. It undercuts the flag wrapping anf flapping lies used to march us to war…while not imperiling other criminal enterprises . just imo

    • dakinikat says:

      I’m trying to figure out exactly what the motivation is within the White House and that could be it. Assange is not a US citizen. He’s not a resident. His servers aren’t even in this country. Like I said with the Carl Bernstein Reference, he just published the material like the WAPO did with the Deep throat stuff.

      What’s making the Dept of Justice such a vigilante group? He’s an Aussie for pete’s sake! It looks like they’re being petty over embarrassment. Where’s the crime? Where’s the damages?

      • ralphb says:

        petty over embarrassment

        That may have nailed it. Embarrassing a narcissist may be considered a serious crime in some quarters.

        For Assange, he appears to be something of a narcissistic gloryhound himself but I’m not bothered by that. I care much less for the man than his information.

      • grayslady says:

        I think that authoritarian figures in our government have been long trying to curb freedom of expression on the internet–unless the expression happens to agree with the PR approach being touted by the powerful (what Jane Hamsher calls the “veal pen”). Look at what happened yesterday in France. Under the guise of a new “security procedures” law, known as LOPPSI II (Loi d’Orientation et de Programmation pour la Securite Interieure), specifically Article 4, the French government can now force ISPs to filter out content based on a government-provided secret “black list”, ostensibly to provide child pornography sites from receiving internet traffic.

        According to a Der Spiegel Online article from last February (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,678508,00.html), when the issue was first coming up for a vote in the French assembly,

        The list of banned Web sites would be provided by the Interior Ministry. The approach is very similar to a proposed German Internet law aimed at fighting child pornography, which also foresaw limiting access to certain sites. That legislation was signed into law by German President Horst Köhler on Wednesday — even though the German government had recently decided it no longer wanted to apply the law in its existing form, after massive protests by Internet users.

        Under the new French legislation, police and security forces would be able to use clandestinely installed software, known in the jargon as a “Trojan horse,” to spy on private computers. Remote access to private computers would be made possible under the supervision of a judge.

        The draft law indicates that President Nicolas Sarkozy is sticking to his hard line on Internet issues. Last year his administration pushed through the HADOPI law which gives ISPs the power to block or restrict Internet access to users of illegal file-sharing sites who refuse to desist under a “three strikes” system. The new legislation is simply the next step in regulating Internet use in France.

        Censorship of the internet is supposedly illegal under EU laws, but Sarkozy, whose approval among French voters is exceedingly low right now, is desperately trying to claim at least one legislative victory by preying on people’s fears, so the censorship is billed as part of a new “security” program–only there will be no judicial oversight of which websites end up on the “black list”, or even who is on the black list or why. The Australian Labor Party has been trying to impose a similar firewall on Australian ISPs since 2008–and for the same reason as the French, censorship of child pornographic sites–but, so far, the backlash from political opposition parties has prevented even so much as a draft of a new law from taking place.

        Bottom line is to be very wary of excuses for why we need internet censorship in order to be “protected” by our government. Lieberman is a real danger here, especially as he continues to head up the Homeland Security Committee going into the new year.

        • dakinikat says:

          yeah, the kill switch idea scares the living daylights out of me especially given how the MSM gets so caught up in things like the march to war in Iraq and the march to our new Black Ronald Reagan President. If I couldn’t get news from other countries, I think I wouldn’t really be getting news some times.

      • Minkoff Minx says:

        I don’t know about “reasons” for all the actions of Lieberman and the others like him that are out to get Assange. When you got a US citizen (Manning) being held in a solitary confinement cell, experiencing a torture of sorts, and he has not even been charged…and then you got a AG Holder, that is trying to charge Assange with espionage and assault to the ego of President Big O, and he is not even a US Citizen…It just makes me sit here and feel like I have been hit in the head with a giant cabbage. I don’t know what to make of it….

    • bostonboomer says:

      I don’t believe Assange has any desire for another war. He has been publishing leaks for years now. I can’t figure out why the U.S. is so worked up about the diplomatic cables when they didn’t say boo about the revelations about war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Maybe you’re right that the elites are just using this as an opportunity to gin up another war. But you have to wonder where the money and cannon fodder are going to come from.

  3. Minkoff Minx says:

    Julian Assange's extradition not yet sought by US | Media | The Guardian

    The US attorney general, Eric Holder, is under enormous political pressure to take action against Assange but his officials are struggling to find legislation under which to mount a prosecution.

    A congressional committee, the house judiciary committee, today took evidence from a variety of lawyers about the possibility of a prosecution under the espionage act and the legal and constitutional issues raised by WikiLeaks.

    There is a growing consensus among US constitutional lawyers and other legal experts, while rehearsing all the problems attached to bringing a prosecution, that Assange will be indicted. But they are doubtful about the chances of extradition from Britain and think it will be harder still from Sweden.

    Floyd Abrams, the lawyer who defended the New York Times in the supreme court about the Pentagon papers leak in the 1970s, said today that the chances of a US indictment against Assange were better than even. Paul Rosenzweig, a former deputy assistant secretary for policy in the department of homeland security, put the chances higher, at 80%.

  4. Linda C says:

    Some how I don’t think this is about the current dump of cables but maybe something more in the offering that the gov already knows about? Assange has been talking about a big dump regarding the banking industry. If there is something significant there, would it be enough to cause another panic of the wealthy or just something simpler like riots of the poor villagers. There hasn’t been much in the state departments cables that I have heard about that are actually “that shocking”. So the fuss doesn’t match the content. It would seem like the gov is protesting too much.

    • Woman Voter says:

      I wondered about that myself, because when we all lost money, someone made money. I think they are concerned about some thing, but I don’t know what, and the endless WARS can’t be helping matters any.

  5. affinis says:

    The Assange case is obviously heavily politicized (i.e. not being handled in a routine legal fashion). The accusers are not represented by a typical lawyer. They’re actually represented by the law firm of Borgstrom & Bodstrom – and specifically by Claes Borgstrom. Borgstrom is a prominant politician in the Social Democratic Party and a former government minister (2000 to 2007 – Equal Opportunities Ombudsman for the Swedish government), with a reputation for seeking the limelight. His partner, Thomas Bodstrom, was the Swedish Minister for Justice (essentially, the Swedish Attourney General) from 2000-2006. He was controversial for pushing warrantless wiretapping and was apparently involved in extraordinary rendition (Bodstrom was implicated by former Foreign Minister Anna Lindh; in violation of human rights laws, two indviduals residing in Sweden were detained and turned over to the CIA, flown to Egypt, then tortured). Bodstrom was a member of the Swedish parliment (chairing the committee for juridical issues) until October of this year, and has strong U.S. ties (his predominant residence is actually in the U.S. – Massachusetts). Borgstrom & Bodstrom succeeded in having the case reopened via Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny (incidentally, it has been reported – though I haven’t yet seen definitive confirmation – that the Interpol red notice originating from the Ny’s office requested that Assange be held incommunicado, with diminished access to outside communication – again, atypical).

    • bostonboomer says:

      Very interesting. Thanks for the info.

    • Woman Voter says:

      Well, the plot continues to twist and turn. Thanks for the background information on the Lawyers and the prosecutor.

    • Pips says:

      So now it’s a bad thing that women who have been sexually assaulted are represented by someone who not only believes in equal opportunity but also works for it? Not the way I see it.

      “The Assange case is obviously heavily politicized (i.e. not being handled in a routine legal fashion).”
      So do you have any proof of this allegation?

      “The accusers are not represented by a typical lawyer.”
      How do you define a “typical” lawyer? What is an “atypical” lawyer? Is Assange represented by “typical” lawyers?

      They’re actually represented by the law firm of Borgstrom & Bodstrom.”
      No. They are “actually” represented by the lawyer (typical or not!) Claes Borgström.
      Thomas Bodstrom is not involved in this case. Yes, he is for the time being (not having “predominant residence”!) living in the US … and?
      You can read what Bodström has to say about the case – and other interesting “musings” about US-Sweden relations – here:
      http://www.bodstromsamhallet.se/

      “[Borgström has] a reputation for seeking the limelight.”
      What makes you say that? Do you have any proof of this? Have you even ever seen him on tv at any point? To me he seems to be keeping a very low profile. Especially after his website came under attack and he was given police protection. Your description fits Assange’s pompous English lawyer a whole lot more. He seems hellbent on getting the most out of his 15 minutes of fame. Even when it takes lying.

      “Borgstrom & Bodstrom succeeded in having the case reopened via Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny.”
      As a representative of the two women, Claes Borgström – as one would expect from any lawyer – contested the reversal by Eva Finné of the original rape charge. On sept. 1 after further investigation, chiefprosecutor Marianne Ny decided to reopen the investigation into the rape allegation too. (The two other charges were never reversed.)

      “… though I haven’t yet seen definitive confirmation.”
      So maybe you shouldn’t spread yet more unconfirmed rumours?

      If you’re interested in facts, you could check this out:
      http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/

      • affinis says:

        Borgstrom – yes, I have seen him on TV (and in print from interviews).

        Nationally prominant politicians who have served as government ministers are not typical, at least in my book. If I ever end up in court, I wouldn’t mind having a former U.S. cabinet member representing me (but I think that’s exceedingly unlikely to happen). And I suppose that cabinet members are no more likely than any other lawyer to succeed in getting a case re-opened – that our justice/prosecutorial system is quite immune from politics. And I’m sure that using a law firm where the other partner is the former U.S. Attorney General (who is currently chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee) would be completely irrelevant. (Note – I don’t actually believe those last two sentences).

        The “limelight” references for Borgstrom are myriad. One of many allusions to this – old NY Times article (2006):
        “The criticism against Borgstrom and his work has not been confined to sports lovers. He is often accused of loving the limelight a bit too much. More seriously, critics say his work does not seem to have much effect.”

        It’s been widely reported that Assange was kept in solitary, with minimal access to outside material. For a start:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/13/assange-in-court-appeal-release
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-walks-free-nine-days-jail

        Nate Silver had a column yesterday at the NY Times, and though I do have issues with parts of what he wrote (he’s one of the blogger boyz), I think the following is an entirely valid point:
        “After turning himself in to the authorities in London, Mr. Assange was initially denied bail (although he has since been awarded it) — which is particularly unusual given that Swedish authorities have still not formally charged him with a crime, but merely want to bring him in for questioning. Most unusually still, Sweden had issued an Interpol red alert for Mr. Assange’s arrest, something they have done for only one other person this year accused of a sex crime: Jan Christer Wallenkurtz, who is suspected of multiple cases of sexual assault against children.”
        Assange made himself available for questioning in Sweden. He left with permission of Swedish authorities. In Britain, when informed that the case was being reopened, he had his lawyers contact the British authorities, and offered to be questioned by Swedish investigators either at Scotland Yard or at the Swedish Embassy. That’s part of why judges denied the appeal to not release him on bail – from yesterday’s Guardian: “the judge noted that Assange had made arrangements at an early stage of his stay in Britain for his lawyers to be in contact with the Metropolitan police over the ongoing case in Sweden. ‘That is not the conduct of a person who is seeking to evade justice,’ the judge said.”

        All this doesn’t mean that I have a clear view on Assange’s innocence or guilt. I dislike personality cults, and there’s too much of that around him. A while back, I was somewhat inclined to think him guilty (he appears to have considerable ego, which often goes with some sense of entitlement). As I’ve continued to read details of the case, I’ve found myself tilting substantially in the opposite direction.