http://213.251.145.96/ http://wikileaks.nl/ http://www.wikileaks.ch/Intermittent connection problems over the last 24 hours. Compounding WikiLeaks’ issues with hosting are the legal problems faced by Julian Assange, the founder of the infamous organization. Earlier this week, Interpol issued a Red Notice for Assange. The Red Notice says that his offence is sex crime related and that the warrant was issued by the International Public Prosecution Office in Gothenburg, Sweden. The move was called a persecution and not a prosecution, by Assange’s lawyer, Mark Stephens in a statement. “Mr. Assange has repeatedly sought meetings with the Prosecutrix - both in Sweden and subsequently - in order to answer her questions and clear his name...Bizarrely, the Prosecutrix - having ignored or rejected those offers of voluntary cooperation - instead sought an arrest warrant to have Mr. Assange held incommunicado without giving his Swedish lawyer sufficient notice, access to evidence or information to take proper instructions from Mr. Assange. This action is all the more peculiar as she has not even issued a formal summons for his interrogation or brought charges against Mr. Assange,” the statement said. “In 28 years of practice I have never come across a prosecutor, whether in the third world or even in a totalitarian regime, where there has been such casual disregard by a prosecutor for their obligations. Given that Sweden is a civilised country I am reluctantly forced to conclude that this is a persecution and not a prosecution.” On Friday, Assange’s Sweedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig told Reuters that he would fight any extradition order that seeks to send him back to Sweden over alleged sex crimes. “If it is in a country where they speak English, I know that my co-counsel Mark Stephens will help me in fighting this extradition order and he will do so vigorously,” Hurtig told Reuters, adding that they are discussing what to do, but one thing that makes the situation harder are the threats against Assange’s life. Assange has been in an undisclosed location since the cablegate leaks started, after death threats were made against him. Offers by Assange to speak with Swedish authorities at an embassy abroad have been rejected. The comments on extradition are due to Swedish authorities issuing a new warrant for Assange’s arrest. The new warrant was needed due to procedural errors in the first warrant. To date, Julian Assange has not been charged. He denies the sex crime allegations, calling the actions a smear campaign against him. “I think somebody has an interest in getting Julian to Sweden and maybe asking for him to be extradited to another country (from there),” Hurtig speculated. While the warrants and legal bickering over Assange moved forward this week, Senator Joseph Lieberman made headlines a second time with his so-called SHIELD Act (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination). On Thursday, Senators John Ensign, Joe Lieberman, and Scott Brown introduced the legislation, calling the amendment to the Espionage Act something that “…will help derail the very real threat posed to human intelligence sources by WikiLeaks.” “Julian Assange and his cronies, in their effort to hinder our war efforts, are creating a hit list for our enemies by publishing the names of our human intelligence sources,” said Ensign. “…I simply will not stand idly by as they become death targets because of Julian Assange. Let me be very clear, WikiLeaks is not a whistleblower website and Assange is not a journalist.” Lieberman added to those statements with “This legislation will help hold people criminally accountable who endanger these sources of information that are vital to protecting our national security interests.” Wired’s Kevin Poulsen made a valid point when he noted that the SHIELD Act is aimed squarely at publishers. “Lieberman’s proposed solution to WikiLeaks could have implications for journalists reporting on some of the more unsavory practices of the intelligence community. For example, former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was once a paid CIA asset. Would reporting that now be a crime?”
Congressman Ron Paul voiced his thoughts when he Tweeted, “In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.” The ACLU weighed in on reports of legal action by the U.S. by noting that they were “deeply skeptical” that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea. “The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents,” Hina Shamsi, the Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project said in a statement. “If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA’s secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome.” In the aforementioned EFF blog posting, they touched on this topic as well, reminding anyone reading that the government itself “…can't take official action to silence WikiLeaks' ongoing publications - that would be an unconstitutional prior restraint, or censorship of speech before it can be communicated to the public.” “No government actor can nix WikiLeaks' right to publish content any more than the government could stop the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, which were also stolen secret government documents.” When it comes to access itself, there have been several organizations moving to block access to WikiLeaks, including The Library of Congress, according to Talking Points Memo. “The Library of Congress has blocked access to the Wikileaks site on its staff computers and on the wireless network that visitors use,” TPM said in their report. In a statement, the LC told TPM that the block is “…because applicable law obligates federal agencies to protect classified information. Unauthorized disclosures of classified documents do not alter the documents' classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents.” We’ll keep following the latest in the cablegate saga. In the meantime, feel free to weigh in with your opinions on WikiLeaks. As a final thought, what are your opinions on the remarks by Pravda, who points out how hypocritical the U.S. is being with all of the drama surrounding cablegate? “It is the American people who should be outraged that its government has transformed a nation with a reputation for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and hypocrisies.” As noted by Mike Masnick at Techdirt, “It's pretty sad when Pravda is lecturing the US on free speech, tolerance and respect for human rights.” Daily updates and coverage on cablegate are available from the following:
The BBC The Guardian The New York TimesFor additional background on the facts surrounding the Swedish case against Julian Assange see: "Assange Case: Evidence Destroyed Over and Over Again" by Göran Rudling, 30 September 2010. .
1 comment :
jesus! - who will rid us of the lieberman? dry up and blow away, joe.
Post a Comment