ILLUSTRATIVE IMAGE
Submitted by Dr. Binoy Kampmark
The third day of extradition proceedings against Julian Assange at the Old Bailey resumed on the point of politics. Assange as a figure of political beliefs; Assange as a target of the Trump administration precisely for having them. The man sketching the portrait was Paul Rogers, Emeritus Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University.
It is no mean feat trying to pin down Assange’s political system. Leftward, rightward, with resistance to the centre? Lashings of libertarianism; heavy doses of anti-war and holding the powerful to account? Such figures tend to be sui generis. In his submitted statement to the court, Rogers suggests a uniform theme. “The political objective of seeking to achieve greater transparency in the workings of governments is clearly both the motivation and the modus operandi of Mr Assange and the organisation WikiLeaks.”
On the stand, Rogers described the Assange method of influence and disruption: the release of the war logs, their influence on public opinion regarding the US imperium’s engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, the revelations of 15,000 unaccounted civilian casualties. The butcher’s bill of the imperium, in other words, was laid bare by the WikiLeaks’ releases.
For Rogers, this approach jarred with various US administrations, but none more so than that of Trump’s. Assange’s entire approach and “what he stands for represents a threat to normal political endeavour.”
James Lewis QC for the prosecution made his effort to narrow, clip and sharpen the focus on Assange, questioning the expanse of political belief being attributed by Rogers. At times, the prosecution seemed suspended in a time capsule, suggesting, for instance, that political opinions were only applicable to governments and leaders. Rogers preferred a more complex picture: the evolving nature of what political opinion might constitute (for instance, it could include “transnational elites” and attitudes towards corporations). The issue of publishing an item or not could also constitute a form of political opinion.
Lewis then went on the attack, grumpy at the length of Rogers’ responses and suggesting that his testimony was biased towards the defence. Why had he omitted the views of such individuals as US assistant attorney Gordon Kromberg, who argued that prosecuting Assange had been a criminal rather than political matter? Again, Rogers took preferred the broad approach. Prosecutors of a certain rank tend to mimic the views of their superiors – that is their due. What mattered were those higher-ups who had initiated a change in policy regarding WikiLeaks to instigate a “politically motivated prosecution”. This could be demonstrated with some plausibility by considering the wider political context of different administrations. The Obama administration had set its heart on not prosecuting Assange; those in the Trump administration had warmed to the idea.
Not quite getting his pound of flesh, Lewis moved on to targeting the reasons why the Obama administration had gone cold on prosecuting Assange. Like many black letter lawyers on this point, the issue of Assange being confined in the Ecuadorean embassy has them in knots. “What would be the point [of arresting Assange] if he’s hiding in the embassy?” posed Lewis. Rogers, rather sensibly, suggested that this would constitute a pressuring move. “It would have made very good sense to bring it at that time, to show a standing attempt to bring Mr Assange to justice.” Lewis had also made a specious point. As investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi points out, individuals such as Edward Snowden have been duly charged despite fleeing the jurisdiction. Practical custody was hardly a necessary precondition to getting that paperwork ready.
Lewis proceeded to till the same ground as that covered in the testimony of Mark Feldstein, attempting to push the suggestion that the case against Assange might yield future charges, at least as believed by himself and his defence team. Rogers offered similar parrying: the Trump administration’s approach to Assange was distinct, its attitudes conveyed through the hostile remarks of former CIA director Mike Pompeo and the then hungry Attorney General Jeff Sessions. A difference in approach might be gathered from President Barack Obama’s commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence. This was Trump’s possible counter.
Post-lunch interest then turned to Trevor Timm, Director of Freedom of the Press Foundation. As he points out in the submitted statement, “The decision to indict Julian Assange on allegations of a ‘conspiracy’ between a publisher and his source or potential sources, and for the publication of truthful information, encroaches on fundamental freedoms.” WikiLeaks was a pioneer in secure submission systems such as SecureDrop, one that had been emulated by media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and Al Jazeera.
It was incumbent upon journalists that they “develop relationships with their sources” and attempts to punish publishing activity arising from the use of “leaked documents of public importance” would face First Amendment difficulties.
The Trump administration, however, had proved bolder than its predecessors. The Espionage Act had been previously floated at such journalists as James Bamford, Ben Bradlee, Seymour Hersh and Neil Sheehan. It took Assange’s arrest and charging in 2019 to break with tradition.
The indictment, particularly in alleging that Assange had engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to crack a military computer passport for reasons of remaining anonymous, would criminalise a common news practice and the whole pursuit of national security journalism. Were the prosecution permitted “to go forward, dozens of reporters at the New York Times, Washington Post and elsewhere would also be in danger.”
Lewis took umbrage at Timm’s claim, outlined in his statement, that Trump had engaged in an enthusiastic “war on journalism”. The FPF director was unsparing, suggesting that the indictment of the WikiLeaks publisher was part of this war, “and it is no exaggeration to say the First Amendment itself is at risk.” To Lewis, Timm replied with a salient reminder that Trump had tweeted 2,200 times about the press, describing them at stages as the “enemy of the people”. It was “very telling that Trump’s is the first one to try to bring a case like this since the Nixon administration.”
The prosecution preferred returning to that exhausted nag of an idea: that Assange could not be seen as a journalist. A form of fallacious logic came into play: the US Department of Justice had no interest in prosecuting journalists and would be breaching their own prosecutorial guidelines in doing so; Assange was not a journalist, therefore showing appropriate discrimination.
Timm had an appropriate response to this nonsensical approach. “In the US, the First Amendment protects everyone. Whether you consider Assange a journalist doesn’t matter; he was engaging in journalistic activity.” And if the DOJ was in breach of federal rules, it should follow that they be held accountable.
Timm also refused to ingest the prosecution line that the indictment was sufficiently narrow to only cover the publication of documents that had revealed the names of informants working for the US. Other charges in the indictment focused on criminalising the act of possessing the documents. That every claim would implicate journalists across the spectrum, as would “the mere thought of obtaining these documents”. A sinister, dangerous implication.
The prosecution was also caught up in what a “responsible journalist” might do. While the issue of unnecessarily publishing the name of a third party thereby endangering that person might raise matters of ethical responsibility, that, suggested Timm, was a separate question “from what is illegal or legal conduct.” A previous attempt to criminalise publishing the name of a US intelligence source had been made, by Senator Joseph Lieberman among others, in 2010 as a direct response to the WikiLeaks disclosures. But the Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination (SHIELD) Act never became law.
As for whether WikiLeaks had behaved appropriately or not in publishing the entire tranche of uncensored US diplomatic cables, despite it not being responsible for leaking the password to the relevant encrypted file containing the documents, Timm was firm. Governments should not have a hand in making such editorial judgments; the question centred on illegality, something which WikiLeaks could not be accused of.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
No matter how truthful the defence arguments are, it’s a Diplock court.
He’s done for, these courts are for rubber stamping the regime narrative.
His only hope, is mass demonstrations and the worlds journalists getting behind the concept of freedom of speech, for all.
Real journalists won’t be heard. I don’t believe demonstrations will do much. Riots is the only thing left. Sadly the Brits would rather riot after a football game than for someone like Assange.
Yes many Brits and i am one,have been lobotomized and many are politically illiterate,they proved that when they elected that Muppet Johnson.
Most of the journalists have turned their backs on the guy, and on the people they say they serve.
Mass demonstrations are the only answer, riots will just give them the ammo to say it’s Russian interference, and they don’t give in to terrorism.
As I said, I think he’s done for, as I don’t believe the general public care enough about truth and justice, not until they suffer at the hands of the ruling classes themselves.
Too late, as the Germans found out in 33.
Mass demonstrations didn’t stop the second Iraq war. There comes a time where bullets is greater than ballots. It’s incredibly naive to believe that one can pull off another Gandhi in current times.
Where do the British public get their hands on the type and amount of weapons to defeat the British Army though Ivan?
Assange is done for, as I said. I don’t believe any demonstration, riot or anything else will save him at this point.
His only hope, is for the country of his birth to demand his return to their jurisdiction, at the expense of relations with the USA, and that’s not going to happen neither.
That said, the people of Britain should be ashamed of their inaction on his behalf, and the so called demockeries who allow this persecution of a man who told us the real story of Iraq.
Since the British don’t enjoy the privilege that Americans get, you’ll have to resort to a number of ways such as thievery (well, not really since you paid for it via taxes). Or, you can fashion your own weapons (until you can get proper ones) or resort to the Black market (risky due to government moles / informants).
I agree that Assange is finished. They might as well have him hung, drawn and quartered.
If you para dropped them in here, half of them would be handed in, while the rest would be kept by the migrants against the natives, lol.
Assange will be over with Uncle Sam soon, so ye can riot for him.
The privilege of having weapons is really helping out ANTIFA, BLM, MB as well as the WS, Police, and military.
Yes this case has shown what a bunch of prostitutes most Journalist are,if they told the truth they would lose their well paid jobs and big houses,in other words they are scum,another problem is it looks like the Judge has already been found wanting,some EU MPs are demanding access to Assange,the Man is a political prisoner,there has been more than one case of US politician calling for Assange to be killed,the extradition should be denied on that alone as his life would be in danger,but the Reich doesn’t work that way,we shall see if the Judge does whats right or turns into Judge Roland freisler.
New heights of western propaganda.
While trying to extradite foreign journalist under the accusations (for doing his work), to another foreign repressive (censorship) country ( instead of to his own country ) to be trailed for non existing “crime”.
In the same time US police state tries to build up campaign based on the false accusations of “poisoning” of Russian citizen with nothing but falsified proves!
How many Russians have been snatched in third Countries then turned over to the US Reich?its the law of the jungle,i said a long time ago the Russians should grab some Americans at random in Russia or even other countries.
Good point Cromwel.
US is going literally for the role of global policemen – judge and jury.
Lets not forget the case daughter of Huawei foundator arrested in Canada on false accusation.
US are so bold in their law of jungle that Russian government has issued warning to all Russians traveling globally a warning that something similar could happen to them.
Yes any Russian should be very aware.
Russians are spending vacations at home in Russia mostly now. I saw article on that in Sputnik
Assange suffers for our right to know the truth. There were some suspicions even before, but after facts of Assange and Snowden we know that all this information about total espionage of private life was real. Accusations are false, he didn’t stole anything. No breaking of promises and oath to the state. The US is not his state, so there is no breaking of laws. That LGBT guy Bradley is free already. WMF offered a billion credit to Ecuador for giving Assange to unfair trial. One more evidence of unlawful act towards Assange.
Correct,he published information passed to him,but so did the Gardian newspaper in Britain,as far as i know the editor wasn’t arrested.