Project Veritas has released an audio recording from 2011 of a telephone conversation between Jullian Assange and Department of State attorney Cliff Johnson. In this recording, Assange informed the government lawyer that the archive of 250,000 classified and declassified Department of State cables will be released in the next few days to a week. At that point in time, WikiLeaks had released 100,000 unclassified and redacted State cables. Apparently, a former WikiLeaks employee Daniel Domscheit-Berg who was suspended by WikiLeaks in August 2010 intended to release both the unclassified and classified cables with no redactions whatsoever.
Here is the 75 minute exchange which was initiated by Julian Assange in its entirety.
Assange opens by warning Cliff Johnson that it is extremely easy to spread this information because the encryption key needed to unlock the encrypted materials was being held on the internet and that WikiLeaks did not control the encrypted version of the Department of State cable as he states here:
“The material, there is an encrypted version of the materials on the web somewhere, that we do not control. One doesn't actually need to convey the material itself, one only needs to convey the location of the material, and its encryption key.”
He states that the motive for the rogue release was to "embarrass us and destroy our exclusivity as severely as possible", likely as retribution for being fired. He goes on to state that "the best way to do that is to make the information completely public en masse as opposed to in an ordered way and that is what is being done."
When asked if WikiLeaks had done anything to stop the release, he states that WikiLeaks had "written legal demands through our German lawyer" and asked the German publication that the information had been passed along to "not to commit to their spread." He also informs Johnson that he suspected that within 24 hours, a major media outlet like Reuters will reveal the story.
He then asks that the State Department step up its warning procedures it was engaged in earlier in the year to the State Department resources that are mentioned in the cables (i.e. those State Department assets that might be at risk in "despotic regimes").
Assange goes on to note that WikiLeaks was informed about this issue by minor media outlets in both Germany and Denmark who contacted WikiLeaks and also learned from their own inside resources about where the individual was spreading the materials and has invited over 111 people on a mailing list to contact him to receive the details (encryption key and the location of the State Department cables) which would allow them access to the unreacted materials. He also notes that WikiLeaks is not in control of the encrypted materials but that it likely resides in several places on the internet and that it has the potential to spread well beyond investigative journalists.
Assange states that WikiLeaks can only slow down the release of the material but that it is highly unlikely that the release can be stopped because it is at "a critical mass". If the release can be slowed, Assange tells Johnson that State has an opportunity to inform its assets (he gives the example of human rights workers) so that they can protect themselves.
Throughout the conversation, Assange repeatedly states that he is concerned about the impact of an uncontrolled leak of unreacted (WikiLeaks was redacted source information from the cables) and classified Department of State cables on potentially vulnerable State staff. He also notes that WikiLeaks had spent 11 months negotiating with Daniel Domscheit-Berg through a mediator to no avail.
As you can see from this posting, Julian Assange made a significant, proactive intervention to inform and warn the Hillary Clinton Department of State that the uncontrolled release of their unreacted, classified cables could threaten the lives of its employees. Meanwhile, Assange remains imprisoned in the top-security Belmarsh prison where he has been since he was arrested on April 11, 2019.
Whle the Assange extradition circus continues in the United Kingdom, a key development has made it increasingly likely that Mr. Assange will find himself an unwilling resident of the United States. This has been made more likely by the wording of the United States/United Kingdom extradition treaty of 2003:
Here is a screen capture showing the pertinent section of the treaty:
Clearly, under Section 4.1 of the Treaty, extradition for political offences are exempt from extradition.
Unfortunately, in her recent commentary, District Judge Vanessa Baraister noted that political extradition was forbidden only in the Treaty, it was not forbidden in the United Kingdom Extradition Act of 2003. According to the Act, there are the following bars to extradition (section 11):
"If the judge is required to proceed under this section he must decide whether the person’s extradition to the category 1 territory is barred by reason of—
(a) the rule against double jeopardy;
(b) extraneous considerations;
(c) the passage of time;
(d) the person’s age;
(e) hostage-taking considerations;
(f) speciality;
(g) the person’s earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from another category 1 territory;
(h) the person’s earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from a non- category 1 territory."
If a judge decides that any of these questions have a negative answer, the person must be discharged. Otherwise, the person will be considered to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the extradition offence.
That said, under section 13 Extraneous Considerations, we find this:
A person may not be extradited to either Class 1 or Class 2 jurisdictions if the request for their extradition is based on political opinions or if they might be prejudiced at trial because of their political opinions.
"i. He is a leading proponent of an open society and of freedom of expression.
ii. He is anti-war and anti-imperialism.
iii. He is a world-renowned champion of political transparency and of the public’s right to access information on issues of importance – issues such as political corruption, war crimes, torture and the mistreatment of Guantanamo detainees."
It is this stance that has led Mr. Assange into direct political conflict with Washington. Here's what one big player in Washington had to say about Assange and WikiLeaks back in 2017:
Here's more of what the same "gentleman" had to say in the same speech given to the Cetner for Strategic and International Studies:
"No, Julian Assange and his kind are not the slightest bit interested in improving civil liberties or enhancing personal freedom. They have pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice. They may have believed that, but they are wrong.
Assange is a narcissist who has created nothing of value. He relies on the dirty work of others to make himself famous. He is a fraud—a coward hiding behind a screen.
And in Kansas, we know something about false Wizards."
It is very, very clear that there is political involvement in the case of Mr. Assange and his extradition.
Other than the exemption based on political opinions, the United Kingdom Extradition Act makes no mention of political offences as a means of exemption from extradition. We all know that this entire circus is based on American politics and politicians/lawmakers who have already condemned Julian Assange no matter whether he is guilty or not.
Not surprisingly, it certainly appears that the deck is stacked against Julian Assange. The decision about his fate is sealed; Washington will do whatever necessary to ensure that a member of the public never again exposes their shenanigans to the light of day. It is Washington's hope that fear of government reprisal will shut us all up.
With the United Kingdom backing down on its persecution of Julian Assange and with the United States still maneuvering to extradite him to stand trial in America, a look back in time shows just how desperate Washington is to rid itself of WikiLeaks once and for all.
Back in April 2017, then CIA Director Mike Pompeo delivered a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In this speech, he made some very pointed comments about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange that provide us with a glimpse into the mindset that currently inhabits the Department of State in particular and Washington as a whole and why the events of April 11th, 2019 occurred.
Here are some key quotes from the rather lengthy speech which looked at America's intelligence community. Early in the speech, he makes this comment:
"As a policy, we at CIA do not comment on the accuracy of purported intelligence documents posted online. In keeping with that policy, I will not specifically comment on the authenticity or provenance of recent disclosures.
But the false narratives that increasingly define our public discourse cannot be ignored. There are fictions out there that demean and distort the work and achievements of CIA and of the broader Intelligence Community. And in the absence of a vocal rebuttal, these voices—ones that proclaim treason to be public advocacy—gain a gravity they do not deserve." (my bolds)
It is important to note that Mr. Pompeo will not comment on the authenticity of documents that are disclosed by whistleblowers but that, in the next breath, he states that these documents are part of a false narrative that demean and distort the work of America's intelligence community.
He goes on to note that the CIA does admit to making mistakes and that it is accountable to the "free and open society that they help to defend" and that the CIA is willing to make its mistakes public to a degree that other nations cannot match.`
Here's what he has to say about WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange:
"And that is one of the many reasons why we at CIA find the celebration of entities like WikiLeaks to be both perplexing and deeply troubling. Because while we do our best to quietly collect information on those who pose very real threats to our country, individuals such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden seek to use that information to make a name for themselves. As long as they make a splash, they care nothing about the lives they put at risk or the damage they cause to national security.
WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service. It has encouraged its followers to find jobs at CIA in order to obtain intelligence. It directed Chelsea Manning in her theft of specific secret information. And it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States, while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations.
It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia. In January of this year, our Intelligence Community determined that Russian military intelligence—the GRU—had used WikiLeaks to release data of US victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber operations against the Democratic National Committee. And the report also found that Russia’s primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.
Now, for those of you who read the editorial page of the Washington Post—and I have a feeling that many of you in this room do—yesterday you would have seen a piece of sophistry penned by Mr. Assange. You would have read a convoluted mass of words wherein Assange compared himself to Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning work of legitimate news organizations such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. One can only imagine the absurd comparisons that the original draft contained.
Assange claims to harbor an overwhelming admiration for both America and the idea of America. But I assure you that this man knows nothing of America and our ideals. He knows nothing of our third President, whose clarion call for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continue to inspire us and the world. And he knows nothing of our 34th President, a hero from my very own Kansas, who helped to liberate Europe from fascists and guided America through the early years of the Cold War.
No, I am quite confident that had Assange been around in the 1930s and 40s and 50s, he would have found himself on the wrong side of history.
We know this because Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today. Yes, they try unsuccessfully to cloak themselves and their actions in the language of liberty and privacy; in reality, however, they champion nothing but their own celebrity. Their currency is clickbait; their moral compass, nonexistent. Their mission: personal self-aggrandizement through the destruction of Western values.
They do not care about the causes and people they claim to represent. If they did, they would focus instead on the autocratic regimes in this world that actually suppress free speech and dissent. Instead, they choose to exploit the legitimate secrets of democratic governments—which has, so far, proven to be a much safer approach than provoking a tyrant.
Clearly, these individuals are not especially burdened by conscience. We know this, for example, because Assange has been more than cavalier in disclosing the personal information of scores of innocent citizens around the globe. We know this because the damage they have done to the security and safety of the free world is tangible. And the examples are numerous." (my bolds)
Actually, when it comes to Russia and the "pass" that it has been given by WikiLeaks, Mr. Pompeo could not be more wrong. On September 19, 2017, WikiLeaks published its "Spy Files Russia" documents which provided insight into Russia's surveillance contractors. In the case of Russia, Russias communication providers are required by law to install components for surveillance which is provided by the FSB which are linked to the FSB, Russia's Federal Security Service. And, perhaps we can attribute WikiLeaks ability to release information on America's intelligence community because it is far more prone to leaks than the intelligence communities of other nations.
Mr. Pompeo also provided his audience with a direct link between WikiLeaks and terrorism:
"As for Assange, his actions have attracted a devoted following among some of our most determined enemies. Following a recent WikiLeaks disclosure, an al Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula member posted a comment online thanking WikiLeaks for providing a means to fight America in a way that AQAP had not previously envisioned.
AQAP represents one of the most serious terrorist threats to our country and the world. It is a group that is devoted not only to bringing down civilian passenger planes, but our way of life as well. That Assange is the darling of terrorists is nothing short of reprehensible." (my bold)
Here is Mr. Pompeo's three part solution to the Assange "problem":
1.) It is high time we called out those who grant a platform to these leakers and so-called transparency activists. We know the danger that Assange and his not-so-merry band of brothers pose to democracies around the world. Ignorance or misplaced idealism is no longer an acceptable excuse for lionizing these demons.
2.) There are steps that we have to take at home—in fact, this is a process we’ve already started. We’ve got to strengthen our own systems; we’ve got to improve internal mechanisms that help us in our counterintelligence mission. All of us in the Intelligence Community had a wake-up call after Snowden’s treachery. Unfortunately, the threat has not abated. I can’t go into great detail, but the steps we take can’t be static. Our approach to security has to be constantly evolving. We need to be as clever and innovative as the enemies we face. They won’t relent, and neither will we.
3.) We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now."
Let's close with two brief items. First, here's what the ACLU has to say about the arrest and potential American prosecution of Julian Assange:
Second, after Assange's arrest, Donald Trump had this to say about WikiLeaks:
Again, that's:
"I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing and I know there is something having to do with Julian Assange. I've been seeing what's happened with Assange and that will be a determination I would imagine mostly by the Attorney General who is doing an excellent job."
Here's what the President had to say about WikiLeaks during the 2016 Presidential election cycle:
While it may have taken a few days less than two years to complete his dream of getting rid of Julian Assange, it is abundantly clear from the CIA Director's speech that Mr. Assange's fate was sealed once Mike Pompeo had direct access Washington's power brokers no matter what Donald Trump had to say about WikiLeaks back in 2016. Fortunately for those of us on the outside that rely on WikiLeaks to learn more about the hidden secrets of governments and the corporate world, the group will continue to exist with or without its founder.
Now that Julian Assange has been forcibly removed from Ecuador's embassy in London, it is a good time to look back at a ruling by the High Commissioner of the United Nations Human Rights office.
As background to the rulingn, here is what the United Nations had to offer:
"Mr. Assange was arrested on 7 December 2010 in the United Kingdom, pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued against him after he was accused of sexual misconduct in Sweden. That accusation has not been substantiated and after he was interrogated in London the Swedish Prosecutor decided in 2017 not to pursue the investigation.
Mr. Assange has been de facto arbitrarily deprived of his liberty since 2012 without charge or trial. He was first detained on remand and in isolation for 10 days in a prison in London; he then spent 550 days on bail terms constituting house arrest, pending his appeal before the UK’s Supreme Court against his extradition to Sweden. When the Supreme Court upheld the extradition decision, he sought political asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador on 16 August 2012, citing fears of being extradited from Sweden to the USA. He claimed that he had reasonable grounds to believe that should he be extradited to the USA, he would face trial for having published, through Wikileaks, thousands of US classified diplomatic cables and documents. Ecuador granted him political asylum and later Ecuadorian citizenship.
The United Kingdom has indicated that Mr. Assange’s fear to be extradited to the USA was unfounded. In April 2017, in his first public speech since becoming head of the CIA, Mr. Michael Pompeo described Wikileaks as a “hostile intelligence service” which claimed to act in the name of the defence of freedom of expression, freedom of information and privacy. The same month, the US Attorney General stated that it was a US priority to arrest and detain Julian Assange. On 15 November 2018, evidence emerged that the US Department of Justice was preparing an indictment against him but the charges have remained classified.
As a result of the Swedish Prosecutor’s decision not to pursue the investigation against Mr. Assange, the European Arrest Warrant against him was nullified. The remaining ground for arresting him is his violation of the terms of the bail in 2012, when he walked to the embassy of Ecuador to seek political asylum. The terms of bail included reporting daily to the local police station.
The UK authorities have made it clear that should he leave the Ecuadorian Embassy he would be arrested. An arrest warrant has been issued against Mr. Assange by a British court, and police have been assigned since 2012 to stand-by 24/7 at the embassy gate to arrest Mr. Assange should he exit the diplomatic premises." (my bolds)
Just think of the money that has been spent to "police" Mr. Assange 24 hours a day since 2012.
As noted in the press release, the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention adopted this Opinion on Mr. Assange in December 2015. In its Opinion, the Working Group noted that arbitrary deprivation of liberty occurs in the following five cases:
"1.) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him) (category I);
2.) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (category II);
3.) When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
4.) When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy (category IV);
5.) When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language, religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings (category V)."
Mr. Assange was granted political asylum by Ecuador on August 16, 2010. Since then, he has remained in a small, single internal room in the Ecuadorian embassy. At that time, Sweden refused to recognize the granting of asylum and insisted that Mr. Assange be extradited to Sweden with no guarantee that he would not be moved to the United States. The Working Group found that Mr. Assange's detention was arbitrary as follows:
"The deprivation of liberty of Julian Assange is arbitrary and in contravention of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7, 9 (1), (3) and (4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It falls within category III of the categories applicable to the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group."
Let's close with this final commentary from Julian Assange from September 2018 prior to his access to the internet being cut:
It is highly likely that Mr. Assange will face legal persecution far beyond the punishment that the United Kingdom's legal system will impose for his violations of the terms of his bail which included daily reports to a local police station for a Swedish charge that was dropped. Mr. Assange, who has never been accused of publishing anything that was not entirely truthful, is now experiencing what happens to whistleblowers who present all of us with the painful reality of today's world.
Updated June 2019 Now that Julian Assange has been arrested and is under lock and key, a look back at a WikiLeaks release from 2012 will give us a sense of how Washington has wanted to handle this case under the Obama Administration.
On February 28, 2012, WikiLeaks announced that it had confidential emails from the Texas-based private intelligence firm Stratfor which describes itself as the "world's leading geopolitical intelligence platform". A series of emails from Stratfor's then Vice President for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security, Fred Burton, provides us with an inside glimpse into how the Obama Administration was going to handle the Assange case. Just to provide you with some context, here is Mr. Burton's CV:
As you can see, prior to his employment at Stratfor, Mr. Burton who is now Stratfor's Chief Security Officer spent 14 years with the United States Department of State as a counterterrorism agent and was involved in the investigation of several high profile cases including the first bombing of the World Trade Center and the assassination of Israel's Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin. I think that we can agree that Mr. Burton's experience in the intelligence service would classify him as a member of the "Deep State".
Now, let's look at some of Mr. Burton's emails regarding WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. Here'swhat he had to say about Julian Assange's future on December 7, 2010:
Here is an email that looks at where Mr. Burton waxes philosophically about a suitable punishment for Julian Assange should he ever be charged and found guilty:
Here is another part of the same email chain with further suggestions on how the Assange case should be handled:
As shown in this email dated December 7, 2010, Mr. Burton proposed using tactics that are used to bring down terrorist organizations to bring down Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, tactics that he no doubt was familiar with during his time with the State Department:
For your illumination, 43 is George W. Bush (America's 43rd president). I do like the reference to Big Brother, particularly given Stratfor's role as a "global intelligence" company.
As well, in this email we find the following comments from Sean Noonan:
"Assange created Wikileaks with himself as the only public face—he leads supports, drives donations, and faces criticism. This has made many in the organization unhappy, and some have left it after disagreeing with him. I don't think ppl are unhappy that he is the supreme leader; i think they're unhappy b/c he's a dick head who doesn't allow anyone else to voice any opinions whatsoever. there is a difference.* If Assange were to face charges in Sweden for sexual assault or new charges in the UK or US and was found guilty, WikiLeaks would still need someone to operate it. Assange may have someone waiting in the wings, but that is not evident.
WikiLeaks has also suffered logistically and as a brand. As national governments put pressure on its infrastructure, its websites have been shut and most importantly its main source of funding - PayPal- has closed WikiLeaks account. Does MasterCard own PayPal? I saw something in an OS article about MasterCard cutting off WikiLeaks' accounts With such pressure and government monitoring, future leakers may be too afraid of getting intercepted and go elsewhere. Moreover, this new set of documents have not worked out like Assange expected- the U.S. public is not angry at the State Department, but many are angry at Assange and his organization." (my bold)
Now, for the coup de gras. Here is an email dated January 26, 2011 in response to an email regarding a potential link between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange showing that the Obama Administration had plans in place to charge Mr. Assange:
This is particularly interesting given the recent inadvertent revelations that the U.S. government is behind moves to criminally charge Julian Assange as shown here (see the top of page 2 and the top of page 3) and keep the fact that he had been arrested confidential:
Let's close with a look at how Mr. Burton wanted to punish Julian Assange and anyone involved with WikiLeaks in this email from December 7, 2010:
As we can see, the Deep State as represented by Mr. Fred Burton, a highly connected Washington insider, and the cast of characters that inhabit Washington have long desired to rid itself of one of the few organizations that can shed light on the secrecy that plagues American politics and its greater community. After all, knowledge is power and if the Deep State can keep the proletariat ignorant, it can control the narrative.
Now that Julian Assange has been arrested, it is interesting to look at the repercussions of prosecuting him. While many politicians in the United States would like to get their grubby paws around Mr. Assange's neck as shown here:
....the events of April 11, 2019 should not come as a surprise. While the moves to prosecute Mr. Assange seem very clear cut from a Congressional perspective, a speech by David McCraw, the deputy general counsel and lead litigation attorney for freedom-of-information lawsuits for the New York Times provides us with a completely different viewpoint on the prosecution of WikiLeaks. According to an article in the Courthouse News Service by Maria Dinzeo, McCraw's speech to the Ninth Circuit's annual judicial conference held in Anaheim, California, Mr. McCraw made the following comments to a roomful of judges and other judicial officials about the potential prosecution of Julian Assange as part of a panel on "The Law of Leaks":
"I think the prosecution of him would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers. From that incident, from everything I know, he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and I think the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks.
Do I wish journalism was practiced in a certain way, like it is with The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal? Of course. But I also think new ways of publishing have their value. Our colleagues who are not only challenging us financially but journalistically have raised an awareness that there are different ways to report.
But if someone is in the business of publishing information, I think that whatever privilege happens to apply – whatever extension of the law that would apply – should be there. Because the question isn’t whether he’s a journalist. It’s in that instance was he committing an act of journalism.”
He also noted that he does find some of the methods used by Assange to be discomfiting and irresponsible, particularly the dumping of unredacted documents that reveal personal information.
According to Assange's lawyers, back in 2011, there was concern that if Mr. Assange were extradited from Britain to Sweden, he could end up in the United States where he could face the death penalty as shown here:
What is critical to remember about WikiLeaks and its targets is that no one has ever denied that the documents released by Assange et al are not genuine.
Let's close with this interview with John Pilger and Julian Assange regarding the Clinton emails that were released by WikiLeaks in 2016:
"
Here's a key excerpt:
"John Pilger: The Clinton campaign has said that Russia is behind all of this, that Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for WikiLeaks and its emails.
Julian Assange: The Clinton camp has been able to project that kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria: that Russia is responsible for everything. Hilary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That is false; we can say that the Russian government is not the source."
Enough said. But, let's not let facts get in the way of a perfectly good narrative!
I have been an avid follower of the world's political and economic scene since the great gold rush of 1979 - 1980 when it seemed that the world's economic system was on the verge of collapse. I am most concerned about the mounting level of government debt and the lack of political will to solve the problem. Actions need to be taken sooner rather than later when demographic issues will make solutions far more difficult. As a geoscientist, I am also concerned about the world's energy future; as we reach peak cheap oil, we need to find viable long-term solutions to what will ultimately become a supply-demand imbalance.
Posts
