Archive for : July, 2019

The one where I post the final song.

In other words, the last one. Yep, I finished. I still have to record a final status update, and do a few things before I decide whether I’m actually ready to hit the bed or not. Right now I’m not, that will probably change in about an hour or so.n I’d like to thank everyone for reading and following along. I had a lot of fun over the past 24 hours! I’m already planning a next one, that will happen to coincide with the date of the extradition hearings next February. I’m not sure if it will be the weekend before, or the weekend after.n OK OK I promise! I’ll get to the song now! Wikileaks Anthem – Protest Song by Isaac Sloan This has been around since 2010. I still enjoy it today. When I was selecting songs, I thought I’d save the one I’ve had the longest for the end.

The Revelations of WikiLeaks: No. 4—The Haunting Case of a Belgian Child Killer and How WikiLeaks Helped Crack It

The Revelations of WikiLeaks: No. 4—The Haunting Case of a Belgian Child Killer and How WikiLeaks Helped Crack Itn

nThe case of notorious homicidal pedophile Marc Dutroux, now serving a life sentence in Belgium, is infamous for the deep depravity of the crimes that were committed and witnessed.nEvidence emerged twice in the case, first in legal proceedings, secondly by the publication of many of the prosecution’s records by many have called a coverup perpetrated by the Belgian establishment. The episode is a definitive example of the exposure of deep judicial and political corruption leading to widespread public distrust in the legitimacy of their institutions of government.nDutroux leaving court during 2013 sentencing appeal.  (YouTube)nThis sentiment has been echoed most recently in the U.S., where the primary rigging in 2016 by the Democratic National Committee left many feeling that the rule of law has come to mean little in the face of an utterly corrupt establishment that has become unaccountable to the public.nThe Dutroux scandal set a precedent of mass public protest in response to such abuses, evident last year (2016) in South Korea’s response to the scandal surrounding President Park Geun-hye and her advisor Choi Soon-Sil. nIt took the better part of a decade,/a> for the Belgian legal system to convict Marc Dutroux in 2004 for the mid-1990s kidnapping and rape of six girls, four of whom were murdered. The case was infamous for an inexplicably high number of mysterious deaths, suppression of evidence by the police, and numerous accounts from witnesses of extreme abuse perpetrated by a well-connected, violent pedophile ring.nThe case prompted roughly “The White March,” where  protesters adopted a color that in Belgium is a sign of hope. nThe Dutroux Affair left such deep scars on the consciousness of the Belgian population that roughly one third of Belgians who shared the surname Dutroux with the accused had their names legally changed. Despite the case having been legally concluded, many years later it is apparent that numerous significant elements of the important case remain unresolved.nArrestednThe case began with the arrest of Marc Dutroux in 1996. Two of the four dead girls found on his properties had been buried alive after being wrapped in plastic. Two more girls died of starvation in a home-made underground dungeon while Dutroux served a brief prison sentence. Part of the public outcry regarding the handling of Dutroux’s case stemmed from his previous convictions for similar rapes against young girls; despite the nature of these crimes, Dutroux had been released early, allowing him to re-offend.n Media reports describe victims kept in cages. A large amount of DNA evidence recovered from these cells were never analyzed by authorities, even though it may have revealed the identities of additional perpetrators. The defense regularly cited DNA evidence indicating that other people visited Dutroux’s cell, alluding to hundreds of human hairs that were never accounted for.nAdding to the botched nature of the case, police eventually admitted that they could have saved lives had they watched videos confiscated from Dutroux’s home showing him constructing the dungeon where some of the girls died.nDutroux’s lawyer commented in court on the failure to analyze DNA evidence found in the basement cell where two of Dutroux’s victims died: “Can people really make you believe there wasn’t a pedophile ring? We see clearly in the dossier material proof that other people than the accused here present frequented the cellar.” nDutroux’s claims regarding help from the police appeared to have been corroborated by seven arrests in the case, including that of a police officer.nDutroux and his counsel consistently alleged that he had abducted and abused girls with police help as part of a child trafficking and abuse network connected to the elite of the Belgian establishment during his criminal proceedings. The claims were discussed by The Washington Post, which also noted that police had said Dutroux was part of a child-prostitution ring that may also have been responsible for several other disappearances still unsolved. Reporters wrote that Dutroux’s “gang” allegedly offered to buy young victims for $5,000 apiece.nHouse where Dutroux held his victims, covered in a mural, 2015. (CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)nAccomplice Michel Nihoul nDutroux also claimed that Belgian businessman Michel Nihoul had been his accomplice and was his link with a larger criminal enterprise. Nihoul was charged in relation to the case with “kidnapping, rape, conspiracy, and drug offenses,” among a total of 13 people who were charged in connection with the Dutroux case. Nihoul was acquitted of charges connected to kidnappping, but was convicted of participating in a ring that trafficked drugs and people into Belgium.nNihoul had expressed confidence to The Guardian after charges were initially brought against him, saying that the case would never come to court because he had “information about important people in Belgium that could bring the government down.” During the interview Nihoul boasted, calling himself the monster of Belgium. His allusion to sexual blackmail material paralleled Marc Dutroux’s allegations during court proceedings that Nihoul was connected to a network of powerful child abusers.nAccording to the BBC,  investigators believed that Dutroux and Nihoul were both part of a larger human trafficking network: “Investigators believe Dutroux and Nihoul were planning a long distance prostitution trafficking network involving cars and the import of girls from Slovakia…” Fox News reported on the reaction of the mother of one of Dutroux’s victims, who said: “This has confirmed what I thought: They worked together… the recognition of this is a relief.”nNihoul’s conviction for trafficking drugs and people begs the question as to who else may have been involved in the network. Nihoul’s statement that he could  “bring the government down” implied his criminal activities included ties with influential individuals, which echoed statements made by Marc Dutroux.nWitnesses in the case identified Nihoul as a violent man who attended orgies where children were sexually abused, tortured and sometimes killed with members of the establishment present. The first judge in the case, Jean-MarcConnerotte, believed “Nihoul was the brains behind the operation,” The Guardian reported. The Telegraph reported that Dutroux’s lawyers had alluded to horrific claims of a “satanic cult” that included child sacrifice. nThere were over 800 mentions of Nihoul in the WikiLeaks dossier, published in 2009. The notes record the presence of a photo of Nihoul with “various political figures,” as well as a statement by Dutroux that: “Nihoul proposed to reduce [traffick] girls from Eastern countries.”nDescriptions of Dutroux in the dossier include his request of help from his brother in pushing a car laden with bodies into a canal. This instance was one of many observations in the dossier which strongly suggest that Dutroux and Nihoul were involved in more crimes than those for which they were charged, and that there may have been additional unknown accomplices in these acts. That these potential links were not investigated fueled public outrage at the failure of the Belgian judicial process.n

nPlease donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

Closing ceremony at Ecuador Embassy in London UK – April 2019

Closing ceremony at Ecuador Embassy in London UK – April 2019nThis was held when the Catholic Worker’s, who were holding a 24/7 vigil at the Ecuadorian embassy in London just a ccouple days after Julian Assange was arrested.n This was also one of my candidates for opening song, but i forgot about it until now. Love the lyrics though!n Please donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

Life Redacted: A Poem For Julian Assange

Life Redacted: A Poem For Julian Assangen

nThe olive branch plucked from the dove of peacenAnd thrown into the fires belownWhere smoke still cloaks the ashy terrainnIn an age where traitors keep the flame.nThe forces of deception that were exposednCould not feel shame before the curtain tornnAnd thus their will by force imposednOn the lamb of innocence so forlorn.nThey chained the messenger and cut his tonguenThey clipped the wings of the golden goosenThey lured the victim into a trapnWhose only end is the hangman’s noose.nHow many will pass his window never knowingnOf the pain that with time is growingnAnd yet no compassion comes from the craven mindsnWho still presume that the world’s eyes are blind.nBut the eyes of the world are watching stillnThe victims of the order “shoot to kill”nThe whistle having been blown cannot be reversednAnd yet for telling the truth a purer life is cursed.nHaunted by captivitynAre all of us who cannot be freenUntil the embassy doors open to a faraway roadnWhere the hunched and beaten let down their heavy load.nA sacrifice made to keep us wisenOccam’s razor slicing through a web of liesnWhere subterfuge is spewed without hesitationnWhile idiots delight at justice’s frustration.nJulian Assange is the brother we never metnAnd yet our tears of rage still burn.nHow then could the world forgetnThe lessons for which he gave his freedom so that we might learn?n

n This was written 4/7 of this year. I look back on that time, and feel like those of us who’ve followed Wikileaks for a long time were collectively holding our breath.n Please donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

George Galloway full speech on Julian Assange’s detention 14.4.2019

George Galloway full speech on Julian Assange’s detention 14.4.2019n This is epic! I was listening to this the day it was given, right before I left for church. It got me all excited for church that day, that’s for sure!n Please donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

EP.741: Wikileaks Editor-Julian Assange in De-Facto SOLITARY CONFINEMENT!

EP.741: Wikileaks Editor-Julian Assange in De-Facto SOLITARY CONFINEMENT!n This was published on 5/4, so just a couple weeks after the arrest. Still relevant, though.n Please donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

The Espionage Act and a Growing Threat to Press Freedom

The Espionage Act and a Growing Threat to Press Freedomn

nThe Justice Department’s recent indictment of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has alarmed press-freedom advocates, with even some of Assange’s fiercest critics warning that the government has crossed a perilous new frontier by using the Espionage Act to target a publisher. Another recent Espionage Act indictment has generated less controversy, presumably because its target is not a publisher but a government insider. Daniel Everette Hale, a former Air Force intelligence analyst, is alleged to have supplied classified documents to “an online news outlet”—apparently the Intercept, known for its aggressive reporting about war.nHale provided intelligence support for U.S. drone strikes while he was deployed in Afghanistan, during the Obama Administration. Some of the documents he allegedly disclosed concerned strikes in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. The Intercept published the documents in the fall of 2015, at a time when U.S. drone strikes were especially controversial and Administration officials were contending that the strikes were lawful, necessary, and surgically precise. Hale believed that the strikes were counterproductive and immoral, and that Americans had a right to know how the military was deciding whom to kill.nThe Espionage Act is more than a century old, and its use as a tool for the suppression of speech crucial to the democratic process is not at all new. During the First World War, some two thousand people were prosecuted under the act for their opposition to the draft and the war, many of them for political speech that we would recognize today as fully protected by the First Amendment. In the nineteen-seventies, the government charged Daniel Ellsberg under the act for supplying the Pentagon Papers, a classified study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, to the Washington Post and the New York Times. The government was forced to abandon the prosecution after it came to light that the F.B.I. had unlawfully tapped Ellsberg’s phone and that agents of the White House had broken into the office of his psychiatrist.nThroughout the twentieth century, though, only one person was convicted under the Espionage Act for supplying information to the press. Samuel Loring Morison, a Navy intelligence analyst, was charged in 1984 with providing classified photographs to Jane’s Defence Weekly. The photos showed a next-generation Soviet aircraft carrier being assembled at a construction yard. Morison was convicted, but President Bill Clinton pardoned him, in 2001.nSenator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who wrote powerfully of the corrosive effect of official secrecy, was among many who advocated for Morison’s pardon. He argued that Morison had been convicted for “an activity which has become a routine aspect of government life: leaking information to the press in order to bring pressure to bear on a policy question.” Moynihan’s observation provided a complement to an argument that Max Frankel, the Times’ Washington bureau chief, had made in the Pentagon Papers case. If the press did not publish government secrets, Frankel wrote, “there could be no adequate diplomatic, military and political reporting of the kind our people take for granted, either abroad or in Washington, and there could be no mature system of communication between the Government and the people.”nThe George W. Bush Administration pursued several government insiders for leaking classified information, but it was the Obama Administration that normalized the use of the Espionage Act against journalists’ sources. Among its targets were Jeffrey Sterling, a former C.I.A. officer, who was sentenced to three and a half years for supplying the Times with classified information about U.S. efforts to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program; Donald Sachtleben, a former F.B.I. agent who was sentenced to three and a half years for providing the Associated Press with information about a foiled terrorist plot in Yemen; and Chelsea Manning, a former military-intelligence analyst who was sentenced to thirty-five years for providing Assange’s WikiLeaks with hundreds of thousands of pages of classified government documents. President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence, in 2017—but only after she had served about seven years in prison. All told, the Obama Administration prosecuted eight people under the Espionage Act for leaking sensitive information to the media, more than all previous Administrations combined.nThe Trump Administration is building on this foundation. Early in 2017, President Trump complained to his F.B.I. director, James Comey, that sensitive information relating to his calls with foreign leaders had found its way into the media. Comey agreed to speak with the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, about pursuing leakers more aggressively, and said that he himself “was eager to find leakers and would like to nail one to the door as a message.” Later that year, Sessions told Congress that the Justice Department was engaged in twenty-seven investigations into classified leaks—a dramatic escalation over previous years. In the two and a half years since Trump complained to Comey, the Justice Department has indicted three people under the Espionage Act for providing information of public concern to the press. One of them, Reality Leigh Winner, was indicted for allegedly disclosing information concerning Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. Another, Terry Albury, the only African-American F.B.I. field agent in Minnesota, was charged with revealing information about the F.B.I.’s surveillance and infiltration of the Somali-American community. Hale was the third.nOn one level, the logic of these indictments is easy to understand. The government needs to be able to protect its secrets, and it couldn’t if every employee and contractor felt empowered to decide which secrets should be disclosed. The problem with its increasing reliance on the Espionage Act to sanction insiders who reveal secrets to the press is that the act collapses all of the distinctions that should matter in those cases. It draws no distinction between insiders who share information with foreign intelligence services and those who share it with the media, or between those who intend to harm the United States and those who intend to inform the public about the abuse of government power. The act doesn’t admit of the possibility of secrets that are illegitimate, or widely known, or no longer sensitive, instead treating all disclosures of “information relating to the national defense” as subject, at least in theory, to the harshest penalties. The act is blind to the possibility that the public’s interest in learning of government incompetence, corruption, or criminality might outweigh the government’s interest in protecting a given secret. It is blind to the difference between whistle-blowers and spies. The government’s now-routine use of the Espionage Act against journalists’ sources suggests that it, too, has lost sight of these distinctions.n It is surely true that unauthorized disclosures to the press have sometimes caused harm. It is also true, however, as Frankel intimated in the Pentagon Papers case, and Moynihan in the Morison case, that without whistle-blowers the concept of accountable government would be a charade. Consider just the past twenty years. The abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the torture of prisoners in C.I.A. black sites, the warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ phone calls, the scandalous dysfunction of the government’s watch lists, even the extent of foreign interference in the 2016 election—we would know far less, or nothing at all, about these topics if we had been dependent on the government’s official disclosures, which were often partial, selective, or simply false.n

nPlease donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

Julian Assange visited by Pamela Anderson and Kristinn Hrafnsson – Belmarsh prison

Julian Assange visited by Pamela Anderson and Kristinn Hrafnsson – Belmarsh prisonnThis was from a couple months ago. I’m pretty sure Hrafnsson has been there to visit again.nn

Julian Assange visited by Pamela Anderson and Kristinn Hrafnsson – Belmarsh prison London from Pamela Anderson on Vimeo.

n Please donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange

Demasking the Torture of Julian Assangen

nNils Melzer, the UN expert on torture, explains how the prejudices and smears he confronted when investigating the case of political prisoner Julian Assange. The longtime legal adviser to the International Committee of the Red Cross (known as the ‘Guardian of international law’) offered this OpEd to a wide array of establishment outlets. None responded positively.nA version of this article was first published in Medium on 26 June 2019, it is republished here with permission of the author.nUPDATE 21 JULY 2019 – The paragraph entitled ‘The Swedish case’ was amended for clarity, further to the author’s amendments.n I know, you may think I am deluded. How could life in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard ever amount to torture? That’s exactly what I thought, too, when Assange first appealed to my office for protection. Like most of the public, I had been subconsciously poisoned by the relentless smear campaign, which had been disseminated over the years. So it took a second knock on my door to get my reluctant attention. But once I looked into the facts of this case, what I found filled me with repulsion and disbelief.n Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the United States had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, Swedish prosecution informed the tabloid press that he was suspected of having raped two women. Strangely, however, the women themselves never claimed to have been raped, nor did they intend to report a criminal offence. Go figure. Moreover, the forensic examination of a condom submitted as evidence, supposedly worn and torn during intercourse with Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure again. One woman even texted that she only wanted Assange to take an HIV test, but that the police were “keen on getting their hands on him”. Go figure, once more. Ever since, both Sweden and Britain have done everything to prevent Assange from confronting these allegations without simultaneously having to expose himself to US extradition and, thus, to a show-trial followed by life in jail. His last refuge had been the Ecuadorian Embassy.nUS hacking claims are “isolated, speculative, and inconsequential”nAlright, I thought, but surely Assange must be a hacker! But what I found is that all his disclosures had been freely leaked to him, and that no one accuses him of having hacked a single computer. In fact, the only arguable hacking-charge against him relates to his alleged unsuccessful attempt to help breaking a password which, had it been successful, might have helped his source to cover her tracks. In short: a rather isolated, speculative, and inconsequential chain of events; a bit like trying to prosecute a driver who unsuccessfully attempted to exceed the speed-limit, but failed because their car was too weak.nExposing “war crimes, corruption, and abuse”nWell then, I thought, at least we know for sure that Assange is a Russian spy, has interfered with US elections, and negligently caused people’s deaths! But all I found is that he consistently published true information of inherent public interest without any breach of trust, duty or allegiance. Yes, he exposed war crimes, corruption, and abuse, but let’s not confuse national security with governmental impunity. Yes, the facts he disclosed empowered US voters to take more informed decisions, but isn’t that simply democracy? Yes, there are ethical discussions to be had regarding the legitimacy of unredacted disclosures. But if actual harm had really been caused, how come neither Assange nor Wikileaks ever faced related criminal charges or civil lawsuits for just compensation?nSmearing AssangenBut surely, I found myself pleading, Assange must be a selfish narcissist, skateboarding through the Ecuadorian Embassy and smearing feces on the walls? Well, all I heard from Embassy staff is that the inevitable inconveniences of his accommodation at their offices were handled with mutual respect and consideration. This changed only after the election of President Moreno, when they were suddenly instructed to find smears against Assange and, when they didn’t, they were soon replaced. The President even took it upon himself to bless the world with his gossip, and to personally strip Assange of his asylum and citizenship without any due process of law.nDehumanising the targetnIn the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanised through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide. And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.n“Full-fledged psychological torture”nVery well, you may say, but what does slander have to do with torture? Well, this is a slippery slope. What may look like mere «mudslinging» in public debate, quickly becomes “mobbing” when used against the defenseless, and even “persecution” once the State is involved. Now just add purposefulness and severe suffering, and what you get is full-fledged psychological torture.nYes, living in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a sweet deal when you believe the rest of the lies. But when no one remembers the reason for the hate you endure, when no one even wants to hear the truth, when neither the courts nor the media hold the powerful to account, then your refuge really is but a rubber boat in a shark-pool, and neither your cat nor your skateboard will save your life.n“A precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy”nEven so, you may say, why spend so much breath on Assange, when countless others are tortured worldwide? Because this is not only about protecting Assange, but about preventing a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy. For once telling the truth has become a crime, while the powerful enjoy impunity, it will be too late to correct the course. We will have surrendered our voice to censorship and our fate to unrestrained tyranny.nThis Op-Ed has been offered for publication to the Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek.nNone responded positively.n

n Thus it came from https://theinterregnum.net/n Please donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

The Mueller Investigation Failed to Provide Evidence That the DNC Was Actually Hacked

The Mueller Investigation Failed to Provide Evidence That the DNC Was Actually Hackedn

nIn 2017, a memorandum was sent to the White House from a group of former U.S. intelligence officials, including William Binney, former technical director at the National Security Agency (NSA).nThe team was a veritable who’s who of accredited technical wizards, comprising former top brass from the NSA, CIA, U.S. Air Force Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Intelligence Council, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and IBM.nThe subject of the memo was their forensic analysis of the emails that were allegedly obtained from a hack at the Democratic National Committee (DNC)—a basis for assertions that the campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government.nUnchallenged allegations of a computer “hack” permeated nearly all mainstream-media coverage of the investigation and were sprinkled throughout much of the final report from special counsel Robert Mueller. The indictment of 12 Russians by Mueller asserts that the emails were obtained through a remote network breach. The indictment drones on and on about a Russian military unit dubbed “Unit 26165” and “X-Agent malware” that supposedly allowed the DNC emails to be compromised.nBut analysis of the files themselves (analysis that team Mueller either never conducted or never discussed) shows otherwise.nWhat was revealed through forensic analysis of the emails was that they were copied at speeds too high to have been hacked and transmitted over the internet. The metadata indicate that the emails had to have been copied locally—by someone who had physical access to the network—to some sort of mobile hard drive or flash drive.nBinney and former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer Larry Johnson wrote in a report that “the highest transfer rate was 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than possible from a remote online connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincides with the download rate for a thumb drive.”nBut let’s set that aside for a moment. The report also fails to account for the CIA’s Marble Framework tool—leaked to the public by WikiLeaks in its “Vault 7” drop—that allows the agency to “mask its hacking attacks to make it look like it came from” another country, including Russia. Even if there was a hack (the only available evidence shows there wasn’t), the CIA could have easily been behind it and left false digital footprints that blamed Russia. Mueller failed to address this, as well.nThese are hardly minor details. And it should now be clear to all that exculpatory evidence is something that neither the Mueller team nor establishment media are interested in providing to the public.nHere’s a friendly reminder that Mueller’s team couldn’t possibly have asserted, with a high degree of confidence, that the emails were actually hacked, because they didn’t even examine the DNC’s server. Neither did the FBI. It’s not inconsequential that the DNC refused to let anyone examine the server. The FBI just accepted the hack narrative based on the word of CrowdStrike, a firm hired by the DNC—a firm whose analyst that supposedly examined the DNC server just happened to have previously worked for none other than … Robert Mueller.nThe Mueller report repeatedly uses the words “hack” and “hacking,” yet fails to offer a shred of evidence that a hack actually took place. The public is just supposed to accept on good faith a claim made by a former FBI director (under his own cloud of suspicion), who’s investigating the current president in a case initiated by biased FBI officials whose investigation is based on opposition research provided by the Russians and paid for by the president’s political opposition, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.nAnalysis of the stolen emails not only eviscerates the legitimacy of at least 12 of Mueller’s indictments—the ones against Russians he accused of conducting a hack that never actually occurred—it further calls into question the motives for the origin of the Mueller probe.nSpecifically, the report states, “Taken together, these disparate data points combine to paint a picture that exonerates alleged Russian hackers and implicates persons within our law enforcement and intelligence community taking part in a campaign of misinformation, deceit and incompetence. It is not a pretty picture.”nAfter an investigation that had 19 lawyers, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 500 witnesses interviewed, and more than 230 orders for communication records, not only was there no finding of collusion, conspiracy, or obstruction, we are also still left with a question about how this whole thing started.nWho actually stole the DNC emails?n

nI think the answer is no one. They were released from someone inside. No, I couldn’t tell you if it was Seth Rich.n Please donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks

Judge Emma Arbuthnot refuses to recuse herself in show trial of Julian Assange

Judge Emma Arbuthnot refuses to recuse herself in show trial of Julian Assangen

nJudge Emma Arbuthnot has refused to recuse herself from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s US extradition hearings. This is what “class justice” looks like.nArbuthnot, Chief Magistrate and Senior District Judge for England and Wales, is flouting fundamental legal principles to ensure that she presides over a show trial against Assange, due to resume at Westminster Magistrates Court on February 25. If extradited, Assange faces charges under the Espionage Act, carrying a 175-year prison sentence. Further charges are pending, which could include the death penalty.nEmma ArbuthnotnThe “Guide to Judicial Conduct” in England and Wales, published in 2018, states that, “Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our system of government in a democratic society and a safeguard of the freedom and rights of the citizen under the rule of law. The judiciary must be seen to be independent of the legislative and executive arms of government both as individuals and as a whole.”nArbuthnot should have automatically recused herself on this basis.nHer husband, James Norwich Arbuthnot, is a Conservative member of the House of Lords. He is intimately connected with the British armed forces and security services, whose criminal operations were exposed by WikiLeaks.nAs a Tory MP, Lord Arbuthnot was between 2005 and 2014 the chair of the Defence Select Committee, the body overseeing the Ministry of Defence and Britain’s armed forces. His watch covered ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the wars for regime change in Libya and Syria.nHe is currently co-chair of the UK advisory board for defence manufacturer Thales and is an advisory board member of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI). Lord Arbuthnot is also a former director at security and intelligence consultancy firm SC Strategy, where he worked for two years alongside co-directors Lord Carlile and Sir John Scarlett.nCarlile is a prominent defender of MI5 who supported the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (nicknamed the Snoopers’ Charter) enabling the British state to access internet connection records without a warrant. He argued that Edward Snowden’s exposures of illegal mass state surveillance “amounted to a criminal act.’’ He oversaw the implementation of anti-terror legislation and reviewed national security procedures in Northern Ireland.nScarlett is former head of MI6 and chair of the government’s Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). He oversaw the production of a report arguing for the right of the secret services to “collect bulk communications data” and was responsible for compiling the “dodgy dossier” on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.nThe activities of Lord Arbuthnot and his colleagues were the subject of thousands of WikiLeaks disclosures. There are almost 2,000 references in the WikiLeaks’ database to Thales and nearly 450 to RUSI. Lord Arbuthnot himself can be found in over 50 entries.nAs Assange’s legal team and UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer have argued, this “strong conflict of interest” requires Lady Arbuthnot to stand down from Assange’s case. Her husband’s entire political life has been dedicated to crushing the sort of transparency and accountability advocated by WikiLeaks.nThe “Guide to Judicial Conduct” explicitly states, “Where a close member of a judge’s family is politically active, the judge needs to bear in mind the possibility that, in some proceedings, that political activity might raise concerns about the judge’s own impartiality and detachment from the political process and should act accordingly.”nFurthermore, “personal animosity towards a party is also a compelling reason for disqualification.”nArbuthnot’s animosity toward Assange is on public record.nNo legal argument will convince Arbuthnot to recuse herself. Her connections via her family to the security services are the very reason she has been selected to oversee this case. The British ruling class requires an official to rubber stamp Assange’s transfer to the US, in what amounts to an extraordinary rendition.nTwo previous instances of judges recusing themselves from English court cases provide a stark contrast to the WikiLeaks founder’s case.nThe first involves Arbuthnot herself. In August 2018, she was obliged to stand down from a case against Uber after the Observer revealed that her husband had a business interest in the ride hailing company via SC Strategy and its client, the Qatar Investment Authority. A judicial spokesman said “as soon as this link was pointed out to her, she assigned the case to a fellow judge. It is essential that judges not only are, but are seen to be, absolutely impartial.”nNo such concerns are evident in the case of Assange. Not one article in the mainstream media has reported on the glaring contradiction between Arbuthnot’s actions in 2018 versus today.nThe second instance is of a judge failing to recuse himself in 1998 during the attempt to extradite former Chilean dictator, torturer and executioner Augusto Pinochet to face criminal charges in Spain.nLord Hoffmann was savaged for failing to make clear his connections with the human rights group Amnesty International, which was a party to the case. He was chair of the charity’s fundraising department in a voluntary capacity. Hoffmann had been one of three Law Lords out of five to vote to overturn a High Court decision affirming Pinochet’s claimed immunity from prosecution due to his being a head of state at the time of his crimes. In an unprecedented move, the House of Lords’ verdict against Pinochet (involving Hoffmann) was scrapped by five law lords and only re-confirmed a year later—with significant qualifications invalidating most of the charges against Pinochet.nThe Law Lords, led by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, developed arguments which would absolutely require Arbuthnot to recuse herself from the Assange case. Previously, whether a judge was automatically disqualified from a case depended on having a financial interest in its outcome. Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s decision extended the principle of automatic disqualification to apply to the much looser categories of non-financial “interests” or support for “causes.”nThe overturn verdict accepted Pinochet’s claim that he had been denied the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states, “Any judge in respect of whom there is a legitimate reason to fear a lack of impartiality must withdraw.”nDenunciations of Hoffmann were brutal. The Guardian reported January 16, 1999 that five law lords had “criticised Lord Hoffmann for flouting the basic principle that ‘justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.’ The devastating criticism cast doubt over Lord Hoffmann’s future as a law lord.”nThe Guardian continued, “The judges accuse Lord Hoffmann of ignoring a basic judicial tenet learned by every student in the first year of law school. So well-known is the rule, said Lord Hope, that no civil court in the United Kingdom has had a judgment set aside for a breach of it this century… ‘Judges are well aware they should not sit in a case where they have even the slightest personal interest in it, either as defendant or as prosecutor,’ Lord Hope said.n“Lord Hutton said public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice would be shaken if Lord Hoffmann’s deciding vote that General Pinochet could be prosecuted was allowed to stand.”nIn January 2000, the Blair Labour government’s Home Secretary Jack Straw intervened to protect the mass murderer, overruling the House of Lords and insisting that extradition proceedings should be halted on the grounds of Pinochet’s supposed ill-health. Pinochet arrived back in Chile on March 3, landing at Santiago Airport where he rose from his wheelchair to the cheers of his fascistic supporters.nClearly, “judicial impartiality” means one thing when it comes to defending a vicious dictator and long-time ally of US and British imperialism. It means another when it amounts to persecuting a world-renowned journalist who has exposed the crimes of the ruling class.nAssange’s scalp must be taken at all costs to further imperialism’s colonial-style wars of conquest and the global assault on the social and democratic rights of the working class. To silence him forever, not only the judiciary but the entire state apparatus and its defenders in the media are shedding all democratic and liberal pretensions.n

nPlease donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

Kim Darroch: Johnson joins defence of press over cables

Kim Darroch: Johnson joins defence of press over cablesn

nBoris Johnson has come out in defence of the right of the press to publish leaked diplomatic dispatches sent by the former British ambassador to the US Sir Kim Darroch, saying it would amount to “an infringement on press freedom and have a chilling effect on public debate”.nJohnson criticised the police over a warning to journalists that they could face prosecution if they publish any further leaked cables. Speaking at a Tory leadership hustings at Wyboston in Bedfordshire, he said that while it was right the perpetrator of the leak was “hunted down and prosecuted” it was wrong for police to target the media. nn“It cannot conceivably be right that newspapers or any other media organisation publishing such material face prosecution,” he added.n“In my view there is no threat to national security implied in the release of this material. It is embarrassing, but it is not a threat to national security. It is the duty of media organisations to bring new and interesting facts into the public domain. That is what they are there for.”nHis comments came after Hunt, the foreign secretary, who is battling with Johnson to be the next Conservative prime minister, said he would “defend to the hilt” the right of the press to publish the leaks.nHunt wrote on Twitter: “These leaks damaged UK/US relations and cost a loyal ambassador his job, so the person responsible must be held fully to account. But I defend to the hilt the right of the press to publish those leaks if they receive them and judge them to be in the public interest: that is their job.”n The Metropolitan police has launched a criminal investigation into the leak of the messages, which were sent to the Mail on Sunday. The UK’s largest police force threatened the media with prosecution for publishing the dispatches.n George Osborne and other editors accused Scotland Yard of encroaching on press freedom. The inquiry by the Met counter-terrorism command, which is responsible for investigating breaches of the Official Secrets Act, was announced in a statement attributed to the assistant commissioner Neil Basu.nHis words were echoed by the executive director of the Society of Editors, Ian Murray, who said: “I cannot think of a worse example of a heavy-handed approach by the police to attempt to curtail the role of the media as a defence against the powerful and those in authority.” He said it was the kind of approach that would be expected from a totalitarian regime.nEarlier, former defence secretary Michael Fallon suggested journalists should be subject to the Official Secrets Act. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Saturday, Fallon welcomed the Met investigation, describing the leak as a “clear breach of the Official Secrets Act” and “damaging to diplomatic efforts”.nHe added: “As soon as we find who did it, we should have them investigated and prosecuted.” Fallon said the advice to newspapers about not publishing the material was “quite logical”.n He added: “If they are receiving stolen material then they should give it back to the rightful owner and should be aware of the huge damage done and potential greater damage by further breaches of the Official Secrets Act.”nFallon was then asked by the presenter, John Humphrys, whether journalists should comply with the act. He responded: “I don’t think anyone can entirely absolve themselves of the need to avoid damage to this country.n“We have press freedom … but we also have laws. We have the Official Secrets Act and it is important that law is upheld.”nWhen news of the Met police inquiry broke, Osborne, the former chancellor and now editor of the Evening Standard, appeared to suggest the statement, which called for any leaked documents to be returned to the government, was written by a junior officer and showed a lack of understanding of press freedom.nThe statement said: “The publication of leaked communications, knowing the damage they have caused or are likely to cause, may also be a criminal matter.n“I would advise all owners, editors and publishers of social and mainstream media not to publish leaked government documents that may already be in their possession, or which may be offered to them, and to turn them over to the police or give them back to their rightful owner, Her Majesty’s government.”n Osborne described the statement as ill-advised, saying: “If I were the Metropolitan police commissioner, and I wanted to maintain my credibility and the credibility of my force, I would quickly distance myself from this very stupid and ill-advised statement from a junior officer who doesn’t appear to understand much about press freedom.”n Tim Shipman, the Sunday Times political editor, criticised the “sinister, absurd, anti-democratic statement this evening threatening journalists with arrest for printing government leaks”, and asked the Met on Twitter: “Do you have any comprehension of a free society? This isn’t Russia.” The Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb said the remarks suggested a “slippery slope to a police state”.nSpeaking at the Tory hustings, Johnson said: “In my view there is no threat to national security implied the release of this material. It is embarrassing, but it is not a threat to national security.n“It is the duty of media organisations to bring new and interesting facts into the public domain. That is what they are there for. A prosecution on this basis would amount to an infringement on press freedom and have a chilling effect on public debate. That is my view.”nDarroch announced he was resigning on Wednesday, saying his position had become impossible following the leak of dispatches in which he described Donald Trump’s White House as inept and dysfunctional.nThe comments drew a furious response from the US president, who said the White House would no longer deal with Darroch.nIn the House of Commons on Thursday, the Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan said an internal Whitehall inquiry had found no evidence the leak was the result of computer hacking. Instead, he told MPs the focus was on finding “someone within the system who has released illicitly these communications”.nThe chair of the foreign affairs select committee, Tom Tugendhat, questioned whether journalists who published such material were committing an offence. “I doubt it is a crime to publish. The ability to have a free press is essential,” he said.

nThis isn’t exactly related to Wikileaks, but if the UK’s new prime minister believes in press freedom, there’s a slim chance he’ll defend Wikileaks as well. Although that chance is extremely slim!n Please donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

Questions over Julian Assange’s claims

Questions over Julian Assange’s claimsnEllen Ratner talks about why we should believe Julian Assange about the 2016 election leaks. Hint: we should!nPlease donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

The slow-motion crucifixion of Julian Assange

The slow-motion crucifixion of Julian Assangen

nFOR THE PAST five years I’ve been reporting on what Catholic Worker and Assange supporter Ciaron O’Reilly refers to as the ‘slow-motion crucifixion of Julian Assange’.nMy first interview in 2014 was with Assange’s father, John Shipton, on the second anniversary of his flight to the Ecuadorian Embassy. Julian’s birthday was approaching and Shipton was organising a care package for his son. The package included a cat, to give Julian companionship in the isolation of his closely-guarded diplomatic sanctuary.n Mr Shipton spoke with understandable bitterness about the Obama Administration’s mistreatment of his son. He told me:nThey have the record for hounding and imprisoning more whistle-blowers than all other administrations combined … They are determined to put the lives of anybody who reveals their misdeeds in limbo. They are cruel people, actually. They do things like sentencing people to three life terms in prison. They attempt to remove all hope. They are cruel.nProphetic words, as it has turned out: recently the U.S. has revealed they will seek to imprison Julian Assange for 175 years.nAssange’s latest limbo is Belmarsh Prison, described as Britain’s toughest prison. Home to many of Britain’s most notorious criminals and terrorists, it is known locally as England’s Guantanamo Bay and “Hellmarsh Prison”.nAssange is kept in his cell 23 hours per day with half an hour in the recreation yard and half an hour to compete with other prisoners to make phone calls, making his attempts to prepare a defence extremely difficult.n Recently, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer, visited Mr Assange with a psychiatrist. He described Assange’s treatment over the past eight years by the U.S. and its allies – Britain, Australia, Sweden – as amounting to torture and in violation of UN Conventions.nThe UN had previously released a report describing Assange’s asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy as “arbitrary detention” but the UK Government ignored this.nProfessor Melzer said he worried that Assange’s health had deteriorated to the point he was no longer able to stand trial and participate in court hearings.n“Secondly, I must say I’m appalled at the consistent, sustained, concerted abuse this man has been exposed to at the hands of the democratic states over a period of almost a decade,” said Professor Melzer, who accused these states of judicial harassment of Assange.nThe UN Special Rapporteur said he was gravely alarmed at the risks Mr Assange would be exposed to if extradited to the United States. Those risks included a “politicised show-trial” in violation of fundamental human rights.nProfessor Melzer, at any rate, had more to say:nIf there are criminal offences that he is alleged to have committed, by all means he needs to respond to that in a court of law.nBut then he needs to be given adequate means to prepare his defence. He cannot be under the constant threat of being extradited to the United States where he is not going to receive a fair trial.nAssange’s extradition hearing was held in June in Westminster Magistrates’ Court. In addition to the five years Assange was facing for hacking charges, the U.S. filed seventeen new charges under the Espionage Act for soliciting and publishing classified information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under these seventeen new charges, Assange faces an additional 170 years in prison.n Assange repeatedly argued that the reason he took flight to the Ecuadorian Embassy was because the U.S. was preparing such charges.nHe has been vindicated: the U.S. has hidden the charges for eight years.nAlthough numerous publications in the U.S. and the rest of the world also published these documents, U.S. journalists are protected from such prosecution. This is because, under U.S. law, their work is deemed in the public interest.nTherefore, the U.S. State has argued that Assange, who won Australia’s most prestigious journalism prize, the Walkley Award for Outstanding Contribution to Journalism, is not a journalist.nAs well as finally revealing what the charges against Assange actually were, the hearing also set a date for the extradition trial, which will be no earlier than February 2020.nAmong the eighty people packed into the small courtroom were Assange supporters John Pilger and Ciaron O’Reilly. O’Reilly was reminded of the fate of another liberator two thousand years before.n Julian Assange was too sick to attend and appeared via a video link from the prison hospital. He looked very weak, said O’Reilly. He has been unable to prepare for any court appearance, let alone have access to the books he needs, or a computer, or a law library, in jail.nPrime Minister Scott Morrison has said that the Australian Government was providing consular assistance to Julian Assange, but he wouldn’t be given any “special treatment”. O’Reilly dismissed this as bureaucratic newspeak.nHe said:nThe Australian Government hasn’t played any proactive role in advocating for his human rights: access to due process and free speech as a journalist.nThere are huge issues involved in charging any journalist under the Espionage Act as even the Washington Post and the New York Times and Bob Carr are beginning to realise. This could be the end of journalism in relation to the military. Australia needs to lift its game and defend the human rights of its citizen Julian Assange.nProfessor Melzer described the judicial harassment that Assange has been subjected to as torture. After eight years, the legal torture of Julian Assange continues.nThe next episode in this “slow-motion crucifixion” is Assange’s extradition trial, due in eight months. In the meantime, Julian Assange rots away in Britain’s equivalent of Guantanamo Bay, Belmarsh Prison, contemplating the 170 years in prison he faces for seventeen crimes of journalism.nJust after Assange’s arrest, his father John Shipton told me, somewhat elegiacally:n“Journalists are an absolute necessity, WikiLeaks is a necessity, Julian is a necessity. I would just like to see the Australian government act positively to ensure that Julian is not forcefully dragooned to an American oubliette; to bring him home to his family, to his friends.”n

nPlease donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

The US Is Applying its Jurisdiction To Other Countries

The US Is Applying its Jurisdiction To Other CountriesnThis is a short clip of Julian Assange speaking, released by Wikileaks. The video was uploaded 6/7/2019, but it doesn’t say when the original speech and/or interview was given.n Please donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n #vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

CHELSEA’S GRAND JURY CASES: STATEMENTS & LEGAL DOCUMENTS

CHELSEA’S GRAND JURY CASES: STATEMENTS & LEGAL DOCUMENTSnThis is a list of updates on Chelsea Manning’s cases, with statements and legal documents.nPlease donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Manning

Censoring The Streets

Censoring The Streetsn

nWe are learning that in certain regions of NE Ohio, activists are not welcome to exercise their first amendment right to free speech—especially in Oberlin, Ohio.nThroughout the afternoon on Saturday June 29, my friend Andrew and I were posting signs reading “Free Julian Assange,” “Chelsea Manning is a POW” and “No Extradition” among others with similar messages.nAndrew and I have a pretty good system when we poster. I carry the signs and hand them over as he staples them to the utility poles with a staple gun.nThis is, of course, a legal form of free speech expression. However, the Oberlin Police Department does not agree. nOn the afternoon of June 29, as Andrew and I reach a utility pole in front of a convenient store, a police cruiser approaches and the vehicle begins to slow down as the officer yells to us that we cannot post the signs “there.”nAndrew, with staple gun in hand about to make the final staple on that sign– turns around, looks the officer the eye, and staples the last staple. Immediately sirens are going off, and soon enough three additional police cars arrive.nExperience With the OfficersnThe officer pulls into the convenient store parking lot and addresses us. Andrew calmly informs her that stapling signs to utility poles is, in fact, legal. She, the officer, is persistent and soon becomes very angry with Andrew as he informs her of our rights.nClearly agitated, the officer orders Andrew to empty his pockets and to place his hands on the hood of the vehicle. He complies. nNow, I would be dishonest if I did not disclose to you that it was very apparent the officer was hoping to find something illegal in his possession. And when she didn’t, she ordered him to get into the back of the police car.nAs Andrew enters the back of the police car, he is ordered to hand me his phone and I hold onto it feeling very dumfounded at what just took place.nThe officer than tells me I am free to go, and I decline. And, I’m still very unsure of what the real issue is at this time, but I can hear the officer tell Andrew that it was not the content of the sign that was an issue but the actual posting of it on the utility pole.nAt this point, I can hear conversation between the officer and Andrew. As the officer attempts to school Andrew on the laws in Oberlin, he explains to her why we were posting signs to begin with. nAs he explains to her the issues of censorship and Julian Assange she replies to him, “I don’t get what you mean?”nMeanwhile, the male officer sitting in one of the other surrounding police cars, gets out and begins conversing with me. I explain to him that we are fighting to prevent the US extradition of Julian Assange. He, too, was unsure of what I was really referencing. nOnce I mentioned “WikiLeaks” I could see the male officer was more clear on what our message was. Yet, he acknowledged he was not completely aware of the details of the case. nI can only hope that after I encouraged him to google independent media sources for information on the case that he actually will follow through. nInterestingly, this officer said to me that he has to enforce laws that he may not agree with. I could easily sense he somewhat agreed we had a right to free speech.nThe male officer I was speaking with then pulls out a camera and holds it up in the direction of our sign on the utility pole. At that moment Andrew and I make eye contact, and smile. The officer then snaps a photograph. nThe AftermathnAs Andrew then exits the police vehicle and the female officer who charged him reads him his citation, we then encouraged her to please take our sign into evidence.nShe vaguely said it may or may not be put into evidence and at that point I offer her my stack of signs and she ignores the offer.nAs she then continues to read Andrew information concerning his citation, he listens and then asks her if he can submit the signs as evidence. She was vague in her response.nSoon enough we were free to go and Andrew and I walked to his car laughing. Of course, being quite shocked, we laughed and talked about the events that just took place.nOn our walk back to our car, police cars were visible at every block and Andrew says to me that they are watching us now to make sure we don’t hang anymore signs.nI laughed and entertained the possibility of their listening to us speak at that moment. We both laughed and then realized—it’s not long before they will try.n*On a side note, it was the officer who had to retrace our path and take down all of our signs.n

nnPlease donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

There Is Much More to the Plight of Assange Than One Man

There Is Much More to the Plight of Assange Than One Mann

nMany people see this catastrophe as the arrest of one man, a journalist who exposed the truth, but there is so much more involved.nThis is a case of human rights for anyone who dares seek asylum. It destroys the idea that a person will be safe by getting refuge. It shows how a change in government can be the end of an asylee’s protection. In Ecuador’s case, it exposes how one corrupt government can go against it’s own Constitution to obtain loans from another country.nAssange’s case is about torture. It is about isolation and the right to obtain healthcare. It is about being illegally detained without sunlight and fresh air. It’s about following international law written to protect the individual from cruel and unusual physical and psychological punishment. If they can get away with it with one person, they can do it to us all for any reason.nThe question raised is when do we put our foot down when an empire oversteps it’s boundaries? When does extradition constitute an international crime?nBy imprisoning Assange, it reveals how the US, UK and Ecuador conspired together to hide their own corruption and punish the journalist and publisher for exposing them. It is an act of imperialism and force when the US empire decides to bully other nations into submission. It also shows how one person can change the world for the better if he is willing to sacrifice himself.nBy bribing Ecuador with a 4.5 billion dollar IMF loan, the US government was able to obtain Assange. This isn’t a supposition, this is fact. Literally within days of the arrest of Assange, President Lenin Moreno came to the US to sign papers for the loan. This is both governments rubbing salt in the wound to their Constitutions. It is one of the biggest examples of imperialism today.nThen their is the enormous blow to free speech and press freedom. The injury to these rights may never heal. This will result in the death of both as we know it.nIt is literally a war being fought for our right to know and government transparency. By prosecuting Assange, the government is winning. We are allowing our elites to rule us like masters and lords. We cannot fight if we don’t know what we are fighting against. Do the elites own us?nFreedom itself is at stake here. Every time we witness a crime against humanity and we do not fight back, we give up another piece of our rights and independence. We are as guilty as those perpetrating the injustice being done. We aid them in their ability to get away with it.nThe persecution of this man is a crime to humanity, to our rights, to our ability to speak out and to our freedom. Are we going to allow these offenses against us to continue? Literally speaking, WE ARE ALL ASSANGE!nn This was written 4/25/2019, so some things may be outdated.nPlease donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange

#Candles4Assange

#Candles4Assangen This is the team that organized the birthday events. They’re now organizing global vigils in front of US embassies. I wanted to have an eternal flame with me while I was doing this here vigil. Maybe I’ll get one for the next one.n Please donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigiln#Wikileaks #Assange

The Revelations of WikiLeaks: No. 3—The Most Extensive Classified Leak in History

n

nFor WikiLeaks, 2010 was an exceptionally eventful year. In April the transparency organization released “Collateral Murder,” the video of U.S. Army helicopters as they shot more than a dozen Iraqis in Baghdad. That proved a worldwide shock and put the 4-year-old publisher on the global media map.n“Afghan War Diaries,” a cache of 75,000 documents, followed in July.nThree months later, on Oct. 22, 2010, WikiLeaks released an even more explosive trove: 391,831 documents and videos it named “Iraq War Logs.” This superseded “Afghan War Diaries” as by far the most extensive leak of classified material in U.S. history. It shone a stark light on the U.S.–led coalition’s conduct in Iraq after its 2003 invasion, when the nation had erupted into a violent sectarian war. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, said the Logs “constituted the most comprehensive and detailed account of any war ever to have entered the public record.”n The source for the “Iraq War Logs” was once again Chelsea Manning, who by then was in a military prison awaiting trial on charges connected to “Collateral Murder” that wound up including 22 counts of theft, assisting the publication of classified intelligence and aiding the enemy.nThe DocumentsnWith the publication of  the “Iraq War Logs,” WikiLeaks disgorged an unprecedented profusion of documents, military reports and videos.nThe Logs cover the six-year period from Jan. 1, 2004, (a matter of months after the 2003 invasion) to Dec. 31, 2009.  WikiLeaks  partnered with The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Al Jazeera and Le Monde to disseminate the Iraq Logs.nTaken together, the Logs portray Iraq under allied occupation as the scene of lawless mayhem and violence. Codes of conduct were routinely ignored, shootings were often indiscriminate and torture of detainees was regularly treated as acceptable practice. Innocent civilians were under constant threat of U.S.-led coalition gunfire and arrest, interrogation, and mistreatment by allied military units and the Iraqi army and police.nAmong the Logs’ most significant revelations:nTorture of DetaineesnThe Iraqi military and police systematically tortured prisoners — including women, children and other civilians — with the tacit approval (and at times the complicity) of U.S. forces. On numerous occasions U.S. troops were directly responsible for the torture of detainees. Here is a typical report of prisoner abuse by a Special Operations unit. The incident occurred on Feb. 2, 2006; the report conveys the routine fashion in which the coalition treated such events. The detainees name, the Special Operations unit’s name, and the location of the incident are deleted:nALLEGED DETAINEE ABUSE BY TF ___ IN ___ 2006-02-02 17:50:00nAT 2350C, IN ___, WHILE CONDUCTING OUT-PROCESSING, DETAINEE # ___ REPORTED THAT HE WAS ABUSED DURING HIS CAPTURE. DETAINEE IS MISSING HIS RIGHT EYE, AND HAS SCAR___ ON HIS RIGHT FOREARM. DETAINEE STATES THAT HIS INJURIES ARE A RESULT OF THE ABUSE THAT HE RECEIVED UPON CAPTURE. DIMS INDICATE THAT THE DETAINEE WAS CAPTURED ON ___ IN ___, AND THE CAPTURING UNIT WAS TASK FORCE ___. THE DETAINEES CAPTURE TAG NUMBER IS ___. IN PROCESSING PERSONNEL STATE THAT THE DETAINEE___ CAPTURE PHOTO DEPICTS A BANDAGE OVER HIS RIGHT EYE, AND INJURY TO HIS RIGHT FOREARM. THE DETAINEE HAS COMPLETED THE DETAINEE ABUSE COMPLAINT FORM, AND WE ARE SEEKING A SWORN STATEMENT FROM THE DETAINEE. PER ORDER OF Task force ___, THE DETAINEE ___ TRANSFERRED AS SCHEDULED, AND CONTINUE CID INVESTIGATION UPON ARRIVAL AT ___ GHRAIB.nThere are many thousands of similar reports detailing the violent misconduct of coalition and Iraqi forces.nAmong WikiLeak’s key revelations, scarcely mentioned in U.S. media reports, were the American army’s secret orders effectively requiring U.S. military units to ignore thousands of cases of “green-green” torture, violence and murder — incidents involving Iraqi detainees held at Iraqi army bases, police stations and prisons. The list of common green-green practices makes repellent reading. Accounts of such incidents, sometimes accompanied by video shot as they occurred, detail beatings of blindfolded prisoners; stabbings; electrocutions; whippings with wires; and sodomy with hoses, water bottles and other objects.n The first U.S. orders covering these incidents were issued in June 2004, two months after the torture practices of U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib broke into the news. The orders were called Frago 242, meaning “fragmentary orders.” Providing there was no U.S. involvement in an incident, American forces were told not to investigate it “unless directed by higher headquarters,” or HHQ. Frago 039, a subsequent order issued in April 2005, required U.S. troops to report green-green incidents; U.S. troops would report more than 1,300 cases of green-green torture to their commanding officers. But, once again, they were ordered to take no further action. Frago 242 and 039 were clear breaches of U.S. responsibility in Iraq.n Here is an example of the reports U.S. forces routinely filed after Frago 242 and Frago 039 were issued. It recounts the apparent murder of a detainee while in Iraqi custody. The incident occurred on Aug. 9, 2009, in Ramadi. Iraqi officials termed the detainee’s death a suicide, while the U.S. report found the detainee’s injuries “consistent with abuse.” The U.S. military closed the case the following October; there is no indication any action was taken:nDate: 2009-08-27 09:00:00nType: Suspicious IncidentnCategory: OthernTracking no.: 20090827090038SLB413998nTitle: (SUSPICIOUS INCIDENT) OTHER RPT RAMADI IRAQI CTU : 1 UE KIAnSummary: WHO: RAMADI PGC TTnWHAT: Reports possible detainee abusenWHEN: 270900C AUG 09nWHERE: Iraqi CTU in Ramadi IVO (38S LB 413 998)nHOW: At 270900C AUG 09, the PGC TT reports possible detainee abuse IVO (38S LB 413 998). On 26 Aug 09, a PGC TT (which included a USN Corpsman) conducted a post mortem visual examination of JASIM MOHAMMED AHMED AL-SHIHAWI, an individual arrested in conjunction with a VBIED interdicted NE of Camp Taqaddum (SIGACT Entry DTG: 241130CAug09). The detainee was transferred from the IHP in Saqlawiah to the Iraqi CTU in Ramadi for questioning and while in custody, reportedly committed suicide. The PGC TT personnel conducting the post mortem examination found bruises and burns on the detainee`s body as well as visible injuries to the head, arm, torso, legs, and neck. The PGC TT report the injuries are consistent with abuse. The CTU/IP have reportedly begun an investigation into the detainees death. An update will be posted when more information becomes available. The SIR is attached.nCLOSED 20091019nOn Oct. 24, 2010, two days after WikiLeaks published the “Iraq War Logs,” Al Jazeera released “U.S. Turns a Blind Eye to Torture.” The video details the Frago 242 and 039 stipulations as revealed in the Logs. While some incidents were eventually investigated — apparently including the one in Ramadi — there is no record of Iraqi personnel receiving a sentence for misconduct. The Al Jazeera report traces knowledge of the orders to “the highest levels of the U.S. government” — including, the video makes plain, Donald Rumsfeld, then defense secretary.nCivilian DeathsnFor the first two years following the 2003 invasion, U.S. military authorities denied keeping records of civilian deaths in Iraq. Only in 2005, when the Defense Department began reporting statistics to Congress, did it emerge that the military had in fact compiled such records. But the DoD’s reports were too imprecise to constitute a reliable record: Deaths and injuries were combined, as were civilian and Iraqi army casualties. And the official numbers were consistently lower than other contemporaneous figures, according to Iraq Body Count, an investigative nongovernmental group based in London. In the five-year period the Logs cover, U.S. military logs put the number of Iraqi casualties at 109,032, some 60,000 of whom were civilians.nThe “Iraq War Logs” did much to clarify the casualty question. In a detailed report, Iraq Body Count said the Logs made it possible, for the first time, to combine disparately sourced data to build a significantly more complete picture.n

nPlease donate to Wikileaks, or the official defense fund. You can do so by going to https://wikileaks.org/donate, or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/n I need a notification of this donation, so I can track the totals raised by this event. You can do so by emailing antipentrap(at)protonmail.com, or sending a direct message to @antipentrap on Twitter. You can also fill out the donation notification form I created, it’s right here.n#vigil #Wikileaks #Assange