Dwayne Winseck and Patrick McCurdy – 17 may 2012

Two weeks ago Birgitta Jonsdottir, the self-styled activist Member of Parliament from Iceland and central figure in the important and ongoing Twitter-WikiLeaks cases, was in Ottawa. We sent her a tweet, got a quick reply, then met to talk about whistle-blowers, privacy and the role of the free press in the age of the Internet.

Ms. Jonsdottir is one of the co-producers of Collateral Murder, a selectively edited video that documents a U.S. military helicopter gunning down two Reuters staff and several others in the streets of Baghdad. The distribution of the video over the Internet in April 2010 shed light on events that the U.S. military had not disclosed and marked the beginning of WikiLeaks’ campaign to release what would be the largest cache of U.S. classified material the world has ever seen.

Over the course of the next year, WikiLeaks joined together with five of the world’s most respected news organizations – The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Speigel, Le Monde and El Pais – to publish material that wreaked havoc with the routine conventions of journalism, diplomacy and war. The near simultaneous publication of the material also set the global news agenda three more times in 2010: (1) during the release of the Afghan and (2) Iraq war logs in July and October, respectively, and (3) a cache of diplomatic cables starting in late November.

The modern day whistle-blowing campaign garnered a number of prestigious awards for journalistic excellence, including Readers’ Choice in Time magazine’s Person of the Year (Julian Assange) (2010), International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists, Italy (2011) and the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism, Australia (2011), among many others.

It also unleashed the wrath of the U.S. government and a wave of recrimination and reprisals against WikiLeaks, and its key figures. Some literally called for its enigmatic frontman, Julian Assange, to be assassinated. In December 2010, Senator Joe Lieberman, Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, pressured Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard, Visa and everyDNS to cut-off resources essential to WikiLeaks’ survival: including servers, data storage, domain names and online payments. Apple removed a WikiLeaks app from the iTunes store shortly thereafter.

The actions did not kill WikiLeaks, but they did cause its donor funding to plummet by an estimated 90 per cent.

The publication of classified material by WikiLeaks triggered an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into the source of the leaks. That quickly led to the arrest of U.S. Army intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, in May 2010. It also issued a series of “secret orders” to popular U.S. search and social media sites in a more or less successful bid to access information about people of interest to its WikiLeaks investigation.

Birgitta Jonsdottir is one of those people. So, too, are Mr. Assange, WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Applebaum and Dutch hacktivist Ron Gongrijp. Their struggle to know which Internet companies received the DOJ’s “secret orders,” and to prevent the disclosure of information about them, raise fundamental questions about state secrets, transparency and privacy rights. They also cut to the heart of journalism in light of how social media like Twitter and Facebook are now routinely used by journalists to access sources, share information, and generally to create and circulate the news.

The Guardian recognized the significance of the Twitter-WikiLeaks cases last month by including Ms. Jonsdottir, Mr. Assange, Mr. Applebaum and Twitter’s chief legal counsel, Alex MacGillvray, on its list of 20 “champions of the open Internet.” The latter was on the list because Twitter was the only Internet company to challenge the DOJ’s “secret orders” (not “court authorized warrants”), while others appear to have rolled-over and shut-up.

Twitter won a small victory in January 2011 when it obtained a court order allowing it to tell Jonsdottir and the rest of the parties involved that Justice wanted information about their accounts. Whatever hope was raised by that ruling, however, was dashed by a blunt district court ruling in the second case 10 months later. It ruled users of commercial social media platforms have no privacy rights because these companies’ business models are based entirely on maximizing the collection and sale of subscriber information. As such, Jonsdottir and the others involved in the case “relinquished any reasonable expectation of privacy” the moment they clicked on Twitter’s terms of service.

At the end of the legal line, Twitter reluctantly handed over a slew of information about their Internet service device numbers, registration pages, connection records, length of service and so on.

The final round of the Twitter-WikiLeaks cases is expected by the end of June when the ACLU and EFF’s last ditch appeal to reveal what other Internet companies received the Justice Department’s “secret orders” will be decided on. Unless the decision rules in their favour, we may never know for sure who these companies are, although Ms. Jonsdottir notes that all eyes are on Facebook, Google and Skype (Microsoft).

Ms. Jonsdottir isn’t holding her breath. Pausing to reflect on the personal effects of these cases, she remains surprisingly upbeat.

“You have to completely alter your lifestyle,” she says. “It’s not pleasant, but I don’t really care. It’s just insults my sense of justice. I would not put anything on social media sites that I don’t want on the front pages of the press.”

She no longer travels to the U.S. on advice of her lawyers and the State Department of Iceland out of fear that she may be arrested. Yet, more than dwelling on the personal costs, Ms. Jonsdottir wants to grmmmph! the fantasy of Barack Obama as a great liberal president and the illusion that the U.S. turned a corner when he replaced George W. Bush. Of course, Mr. Obama has taken a liberal stance on some social issues – his endorsement of gay marriage being the most recent – but the national security imperatives that took root in the U.S. after 9/11 have just gotten further entrenched. The Obama administration has charged more whistle-blowers (six) than all past presidents combined (three), she notes. The Twitter – WikiLeaks cases have also all occurred on Mr. Obama’s watch, she reminds us. More examples wait in the wings.

She is not alone in such views. Harvard University law professor Yochai Benkler argues that the decisions by Amazon, Visa, Paypal and Mastercard to withdraw resources essential to WikiLeaks’ survival under pressure from government official is tantamount to the state using compliant commercial actors to do an end-run around the First Amendment. The latest version of the Reporters without Borders’ Press Freedom Index also shows the U.S. dropping from 20th place in 2009 and 2010 to 47th place in 2011, in contrast to the brief, but substantial, improvement during Mr. Obama’s first year in office.

Ms. Jonsdottir is probably fighting a losing legal battle in the U.S., but back in Iceland she is busy building a model of the free press fit for the digital media age. To do so, she and a few others are spearheading the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI), a project launched by Iceland’s Parliament in 2010. It’s aim? To give whistle-blowers, privacy and free speech the highest standard of legal protection in the world, and make net neutrality a cornerstone of Iceland’s new Constitution.

Idealistic? For sure, but realistic too. The new constitution – mostly written online as an experiment in “crowd-sourcing” – is finished and awaits ratification. Reporters Without Borders calls IMMI “exemplary,” and evidence of progress in a country that already ranks at the very top of its press freedom index. Even Google is funding one small element of the effort: the development of a “democracy index.”

Ms. Jonsdottir is undoubtedly pushing the radical edges of what is possible, but she is acutely aware that while we may never know for certain if companies such as Google were served with the Justice Department’s “secret orders,” not all of them are happy to be used as tools of the state, wittingly or not. Venture capitalists have also told her that the Twitter-WikiLeaks saga is casting a pall over all U.S. Internet companies. IMMI’s commitment to creating a free digital media zone – not to mention pitching Iceland’s cool climate, which is good for data centres – is also about attracting investment in Internet businesses in the country.

So, dreaming big is not unbridled idealism, but pushing the envelope of what is possible. That’s what democracy is about, Ms. Jonsdottir says. “Voting every four years is absolutely not democracy,” she exclaims as our conversation draws to a close, “it is just a transfer of power.” And while she thinks that the Internet is fantastic, experience teachers her that it will never be able to create a free press and better democracy unless people fight like hell for what they believe in, and press equally hard to build the political and legal frameworks that allow such goals to be achieved.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/digital-culture/dwayne-winseck/twitter-wikileaks-case-a-test-of-press-and-privacy-rights-online/article2435723/singlepage/#articlecontent

17/05/2012

Os entrevistados no 4º Programa “The World Tomorrow” são Alaa Abd El-Fattah, do Egito, e Nabeel Rajab, do Bahrein.
—

No quarto programa “The World Tomorrow”, da rede RT (Russia Roday), Julian Assange entrevista dois ativistas de direitos humanos do Oriente Médio. São eles: Alaa Abd El-Fattah, escritor egípcio, e Nabeel Rajab, diretor do Centro de Direitos Humanos do Bahrein.

Rajab foi preso, com outro ativista, logo depois dessa entrevista, no dia 5 de maio, ao voltar ao Bahrein, vindo do Líbano.

(Veja o vídeo aqui)

Julian Assange: A primavera árabe é a materialização dos sonhos de muitos, ou é uma fantasia impossível? Essa semana, ando na direção contrária à da mídia-empresa internacional e converso diretamente com dois líderes revolucionários.

O escritor e ativista Alaa Abd El-Fattah, que está no Cairo. Foi preso, proibido de viajar, e converteu-se em ícone da revolução traída.

E aqui, na prisão domiciliar em que vivo, em Londres, recebo a visita de Nabeel Rajab, diretor do Centro de Direitos Humanos do Bahrein e uma das figuras mais importantes do levante no Bahrein.

Quero perguntar-lhes sobre as revoluções no Oriente Médio. Foram bem-sucedidas, fracassaram, foram revolução declaradas ou clandestinas? O que os motiva a continuar arriscando a própria vida?

Julian Assange: Alaa.

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Alô! Olá.

Julian Assange: Você me vê? Aqui ao meu lado está Nabeel, do Bahrein.

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Sim [falam em árabe]

Nabeel Rajab: Estávamos preocupados com você.

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: É um prazer encontrá-los.

Julian Assange: Você está em liberdade, mas não por muito tempo…

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Nenhum de nós tem liberdade garantida, não é?

Julian Assange: Não, parece que não [risos]. Mas o que aconteceu nas últimas semanas? Nós convidamos você e tentamos trazê-lo…

Nabeel Rajab: Da outra vez [em que foi convidado]…

Julian Assange: … você estava na cadeia.

Nabeel Rajab: É, é verdade. Estava preso. Me obrigaram a ficar lá metade do dia. Mês passado, fui atacado e golpeado em plena rua. Há alguns meses, uns mascarados dos serviços de segurança entraram na minha casa, arrancaram-me de lá, levaram-me para lugar que não sei onde é, de olhos vendados, fui torturado e, depois, me levaram de volta para casa. Quando informei, pela minha conta no Twitter, que viria encontrar Julian Assange, falar com ele num programa de televisão, à noite minha casa foi cercada por quase 100 policiais, armados de metralhadoras. Até que se deram conta de que eu não estava em casa. Disseram à minha família que eu teria de me apresentar à polícia hoje, até as 4h. Bom… Estou aqui.

Julian Assange: Hoje, às 4h, você está aqui.

Nabeel Rajab: Já tinha vindo. Recebi a mensagem na noite passada e acho… Já estou acostumado.

Julian Assange: O que vai fazer?

Nabeel Rajab: Voltar. Quer dizer, tenho de enfrentar essas coisas. Não é a primeira vez. A luta é essa. Liberdade é isso. A democracia pela qual lutamos é essa, custa caro, tem seu preço e temos de pagar o preço. O preço pode ser muito alto… Tantos já pagaram tão caro, tantos continuam a pagar tão caro, no Bahrein. Estou disposto a pagar pelas mudanças pelas quais lutamos.

Julian Assange: E, Alaa, você está onde? Está livre? Retiraram as acusações contra você?

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Não, não retiraram acusação alguma. Ainda estou esperando o julgamento. As investigações continuam. Estou proibido de sair do país. Estou sendo acusado de assassinatos, de destruir propriedade pública, principalmente veículos blindados, tanques de combate, de roubar armas militares, de formar quadrilhas para promover atividades terroristas. Dizem que ataquei dois pelotões, roubei armas e matei um soldado…

Julian Assange: Rapazinho muito travesso, hein?!

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Sim, e verdadeiro Super-Homem! Faço coisas inacreditáveis. Eu, só com as mãos, destruo tanques blindados. [risos] E há testemunhas da acusação que juram que me viram em dois lugares distantes, ao mesmo tempo. Mas, como ainda estão investigando, com certeza ainda descobrirão novas façanhas dos meus superpoderes. É assombroso. Mas tenho ótima reputação, na cidade e na prisão: lá, o pessoal é acusado de roubar carros, motocicletas… Mas eu sou o único que rouba tanques blindados! [risos]

Julian Assange: Na sua opinião, como vai acabar isso?

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Não sei se estão mesmo interessados em mim, ou se a ideia é usar os processos e os julgamentos como ferramenta legal contra todos os ativistas. Parece que não basta espancar manifestantes e ativistas, não basta matar gente nas passeatas. A verdade é que, quando se ouve falar de assassinatos seletivos, de vítimas predefinidas para morrer, aqueles assassinados sempre são pessoas muito importantes, mas pouco conhecidas do público. O problema deles somos nós, os ativistas mais conhecidos, os nomes que todos ouvem nas ruas: o que fazer conosco? Então, acho que estão tentando inventar uma farsa de legalidade, uma farsa de legitimidade, essas investigações e audiências e tal, que usam contra nós. Até agora, fracassaram sempre e perdem tempo. O meu caso continua a ser investigado, e, enquanto investigam, eu já sou declarado culpado de todos os crimes. É possível que, com o tempo, consigam arruinar minha reputação. Agora, por exemplo, divulgaram que apoio os homossexuais. É mais uma ‘acusação’ que, como o roubo de tanques blindados, mais melhora do que agride a minha boa reputação na praça.

Julian Assange: Qual é a situação hoje no Bahrein?

Nabeel Rajab: Pode-se dizer que há três diferentes situações. Em Túnis, a revolução terminou, o governo foi deposto, há novo sistema…

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Ah, mas quem dera que fosse assim! Nada está terminado em Túnis.

Nabeel Rajab: O segundo caso é o Egito, onde a revolução está andando, ainda não acabou, o exército, o sistema e o regime ainda estão lá. E o terceiro caso é a revolução do Bahrein que existe, está lá, é lutada todos os dias, mas ainda não conseguiu qualquer vitória. Mas a revolução existe. Hoje, depois de um ano, a revolução do Bahrein ainda vive. Morreu muita gente. Em termos proporcionais, morreu mais gente no Bahrein que em Túnis ou no Egito. Desgraçadamente, vivemos numa região governada por famílias, ditadores e, isso, há centenas de anos. Mas o poder delas radica na riqueza, no apoio que recebem dos EUA, dos exércitos que têm, não na legitimidade popular. Eles não têm nenhuma legitimidade democrática, mas essa é a realidade, eles estão no poder e não podemos tirá-los de lá, porque ninguém quer falar deles.

Julian Assange: Alaa, e no Egito? Como está a situação no Egito?

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: A verdade é que a saída de Mubarak, depois de 18 dias, foi surpreendente, foi muito rápida… O preço foi alto, mas pensávamos que fosse ser ainda mais alto. O que está acontecendo no Egito agora é que não esperávamos que acontecesse, quero dizer, todos pensávamos que a revolução duraria um ano, talvez mais… Mas acontece que esse ano que já passamos sem Mubarak, foi um ano ainda dos militares. Num primeiro momento, o pessoal pensava que os militares estivessem decididos a conservar a unidade e o estatuto, mas que não se comprometeriam a ponto de defender o regime. O que se vê hoje é que os militares são o núcleo do regime. Agora, a revolução egípcia é revolução contra o governo dos militares.

Julian Assange: No Bahrein, os grupos revolucionários, as pessoas que apoiaram os protestos no Bahrein, estão desiludidos? Têm medo de agir? Sentem que fracassaram? Perderam o entusiasmo? O que impulsiona o processo?

Nabeel Rajab: Ainda há muita gente na luta. A mim não surpreenderia, nem você deve surpreender-se de ver metade da população do Bahrein nas ruas, nos protestos. E esse movimento continua. Não aconteceu assim em nenhuma das revoluções. Nenhuma das revoluções, nos últimos 50 anos, assistiu a manifestações nas quais se reúne 50% da população de um país, nas ruas, nos protestos. Pois no Bahrein, sim, é exatamente assim. Desgraçadamente, por causa das ‘duas caras’ de vários países e da imprensa em vários países, por causa das redes oficiais, como Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabia e de várias redes europeias, nada é divulgado. Mas é a realidade, sim, no Bahrein.

Julian Assange: Por que a rede Al-Jazeera nada mostra?

Nabeel Rajab: Al-Jazeera ajudou a democracia no Egito e na Tunísia. De fato, a rede Al-Jazeera converteu-se em voz de legitimação de qualquer revolução no mundo árabe: se Al-Jazeera cobre, a revolução torna-se fidedigna. Mas, no que se refira ao Bahrein, Al-Jazeera mantém-se calada. Falo da Al-Jazeera em árabe, não da edição em inglês, que é completamente diferente.

Julian Assange: É. Em inglês não estava mal, não é?

Nabeel Rajab: Até certo ponto, sim, não foi tão ruim. Mas a edição em árabe manteve silêncio total sobre o Bahrein. E de fato, em vários campos, adotaram o ponto de vista do governo.

Julian Assange: Por quê?

Nabeel Rajab: Por quê?! Por que são todos parentes, todos da família regente e todos da mesma região. A democracia no Bahrein afetará o Qatar e afetará a Arábia Saudita, dona da rede de televisão Al-Arabia.

Julian Assange: E por que os sauditas mandaram tropas para o Bahrein?

Nabeel Rajab: Aí está algo de que todos deveriam falar e condenar. Mas os sauditas invadiram o meu país acompanhados pelo mais vasto silêncio. Agora, os mesmos governos mandam soldados para a Líbia para lutar contra o regime e já estão também contra Assad da Síria. Vai que talvez tenham razão… Mas no Bahrein o silêncio contra as tropas sauditas foi completo.

Julian Assange: Teriam medo de que os ativistas xiitas se mudassem para a Arábia Saudita?

Nabeel Rajab: Não. [Aconteceu] porque os sauditas têm imensa influência nos EUA, na Europa. Para os interesses de muitos países, para vender armas, para o negócio do petróleo, para os interesses mútuos que, para muitos países, são muito mais importantes que os direitos humanos no Bahrein. Por exemplo, os EUA pediram que os russos não vendessem armas à Síria, mas os EUA, mesmo assim, vendem armas ao Bahrein. Ontem, ouvi uma declaração de um dos representantes dos EUA no Conselho dos Direitos Humanos, que dizia: “Não falaremos nessa reunião sobre o Bahrein, porque o Bahrein está conseguindo avanços por seus próprios meios.” E nós, lá… Enquanto estamos aqui conversando… Há algumas horas, um homem morreu por causa do gás lacrimogêneo. Morre gente todos os dias.

Julian Assange: O Irã está reavivando as forças revolucionárias no…?

Nabeel Rajab: Isso é o que o governo diz. Isso é o que os EUA querem comprar. Mas nada disso tem a ver com a revolução…

Julian Assange: Li um telegrama, durante os protestos no Bahrein, há uns oito meses, e o telegrama que publicamos [dos telegramas diplomáticos dos EUA] dizia que funcionários do governo do chegaram à embaixada dos EUA e disseram: “Olhem aqui, o Irã está por trás dessas demandas por direitos humanos no Bahrein. Está mandando dinheiro e armas para a oposição no Bahrein.” Mas o embaixador dos EUA, na carta que enviou a Washington, dizia que não havia provas de que fosse verdade. Mas o fato é que continuam repetindo e repetindo, mesmo sem qualquer confirmação.

Nabeel Rajab: É sempre assim. Foi assim em pelo menos uma mensagem em que falavam sobre mim: um dos agentes do governo vai à embaixada dos EUA e diz que Nabeel Rajab recebe dinheiro do governo do Irã; e os norte-americanos dizem ao Departamento de Estado que não, que não é verdade, que não há prova alguma. Mas…

Julian Assange: Você acha que o medo do Irã é a principal razão pela qual o Ocidente não apoia…?

Nabeel Rajab: Não há dúvidas de que querem um Bahrein estável, porque a V Frota está ancorada no Bahrein. Querem o Bahrein muito tranquilo e estável. Os sauditas se preocuparam muito quando perderam Ben Ali em Túnis e Mubarak no Egito. Você sabe que o rei saudita convocou Obama e que os dois discutiram furiosamente. Quando se trata de Bahrein, a última coisa que os sauditas querem por ali é alguma revolução, ali, a poucos quilômetros da fronteira, o que teria impacto muito negativo para a Arábia Saudita. Por isso os sauditas mandaram tropas para o Bahrein, para colaborar no massacre, para prender gente, para aquele banho de sangue… Que foi acobertado pelo silêncio absoluto da comunidade internacional.

É verdade que os sauditas não queriam democracia; é verdade que o Qatar diz que promove a democracia em meio mundo, na Síria, por aí, onde for… menos no Qatar. Vocês aí conversem entre si, dizem eles, falem de partilhar a riqueza, falem do que quiserem… porque aqueles governos jamais deixarão que essas coisas aconteçam.

Julian Assange: Alaa, você certamente lembra que, nos dias mais sangrentos da revolução egípcia, Joseph Biden e Hillary Clinton, do Departamento de Estado, propuseram a candidatura de Suleiman, chefe do serviço secreto da Inteligência egípcia, para que fosse uma espécie de sucessor de Mubarak, como se fosse uma figura de conciliação. Nós distribuímos muita informação sobre Suleiman, a postura em relação a Israel, as relações que mantém com os EUA, e que sempre foi uma espécie de ‘torturador em chefe’. Então, logo depois disso, viu-se que o nome de Suleiman não teria sucesso. E Hillary Clinton passou a elogiar a revolução egípcia e a dizer que as revoluções no Egito e em Túnis haviam acontecido graças a duas empresas norte-americanas – Twitter e Facebook. [risos gerais]Você com certeza ouviu isso muitas vezes.

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Você tem de entender que nas revoluções há sempre uma batalha de narrativas. As revoluções representam ideias, tanto quanto são questão de cadáveres pelas ruas, balas, etc. E o aspecto crucial da batalha de narrativas é tentar reduzir a revolução ao nível dos jovens do Facebook. Não significa que esses jovens não tenham tido papel importante na revolução. Sim, tiveram. Mas se se separa só uma parte da revolução e diz-se que uma ou outra parte é a verdadeira e que o resto não existe, e, além do mais, se interessa isolar as forças revolucionárias, eles jogam com tudo, com a classe, com a quantidade de gente que queria usar de violência para defender-se. Os jovens de classe média, com melhor educação e familiarizados com a Internet tiveram papel importante na revolução e, por razões táticas, simbolizaram as revoluções, porque era preciso que todos ‘se apaixonassem’ pela revolução egípcia.

Também houve aquela festa em estilo Woodstock sem sexo e drogas [risos], mas maravilhosa e inspiradora e, ao mesmo tempo, muito real. A festa em Tahrir foi assim. Mas ao contar a história, foi só nessa praça. Fala-se dos jovens, bonitos, bem educados e conectados à Internet e que saíram para reunir-se na praça Tahrir. Assim, já se deixa de fora os trabalhadores, a guerra nas ruas, as batalhas corpo a corpo, e ‘apaga-se’ a violência de defesa, que também houve. Não havia roteiro pronto, não seguimos nenhum roteiro que houvesse sido preparado por gente que nada tinha a ver com a revolução.

Quero dizer é que Hillary não estava trabalhando só para promover empresas norte-americanas: ela trabalhava para impulsionar uma narrativa prevista para deter a revolução e garantir que não avançaria muito além de Mubarak.

Julian Assange: Alaa, você escreveu, uma vez que “A Praça é uma lenda que deixará de existir se as famílias dos mártires deixarem de acreditar na lenda. Nosso sonho é uma alternativa ao regime egípcio. Se nós abandonarmos nosso sonho, em troca de debates realistas, racionais e comprometidos que seguem ordens que vêm de fora da praça, tudo desaparecerá. Não ouçam nem deem importância aos especialistas. Escutem os poetas, porque estamos numa revolução. Andem com cuidado, mas atirem-se no desconhecido, porque assim são as revoluções. Homenageiem os mártires, porque, entre ideias, símbolos e espetáculos revolucionários nada é real, exceto o sangue dos mártires. Nada está garantido, exceto a vida eterna dos mártires.”

Agora, essa parte da revolução egípcia – a Praça – terminou. E o sonho? Também terminou?

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Não se pode definir o que seja um sonho. Mas, com toda a certeza, não é a tediosa democracia representativa ocidental, onde uma nação envolve-se numa guerra, como fez o Reino Unido, sem o consentimento do povo; onde eleger um presidente que encarne novas esperanças é quase exatamente o mesmo que eleger alguém que não encarne esperança alguma, como aconteceu nos EUA.

O sonho… O sonho é o que faz você trabalhar mais, Julian. É uma democracia onde não sejam necessários movimentos como ‘Occupy Wall Street’ ou ‘Occupy Londres’ ou os protestos que houve na Grécia. Mas é ainda mais forte. E só continua vivo porque não é articulado, definido. Não temos teoria. Não, pelo menos, até agora… O sonho… É possível vê-lo nesses momentos em que ficamos ‘poéticos’, como procurei ser no artigo que você citou. O sonho está nos grafitis que, por isso mesmo, estão tão diretamente ligados aos mártires. Para nós, os mártires não são pessoas que morreram. Para nós, eles tornaram-se imortais. Não se trata de só pensar no sacrifício. Trata-se do modo como o sacrifício de uns é importante para outros e como nós mantemos viva a memória dos nossos mártires. Por aí, nos aproximamos da ideia de “sonho”, mas não sei dizer exatamente o que seja.

Nas batalhas de rua, eu quase conseguia tocá-lo… Quando se luta corpo a corpo contra a Polícia, sempre há momentos em que os tiros param, são momentos bem rápidos, quase sempre enquanto a Polícia recarrega as armas e ninguém dispara [risos]. E nós, automaticamente, também paramos. Nesses momentos – aconteceu várias vezes – todos sentam-se em círculos, para descansar um pouco. E há fogueiras e incêndios à volta, porque, bom, sim, usamos coquetéis Molotov, ou outros tipos de instrumentos que provocam fogo. Mas, naqueles momentos, quando ninguém atirava e todos se sentavam em círculos para descansar… As fogueiras viravam fogueiras amistosas. E tomávamos chá! De repente, do nada, surgiam pelas ruas os vendedores de comida, de chá. E lá ficávamos, tomando chá, cantando e tal…

Estamos querendo chegar a um estado pós-moderno – mesmo que ninguém saiba exatamente o que seja isso. Mas estamos em revolução. Não estamos, simplesmente, promovendo ‘reformas’ ordinárias.

Por isso, não interessa o que o governo dos EUA deseje, ou o que Al-Jazeera faça ou não faça, publique ou não publique, porque o que está em andamento é muito mais profundo. Não sei se ganharemos a luta, dessa vez. Não sei, nem, se ganharemos algum dia, durante minha vida… Mas para mim já basta que, praticamente todas as semanas, eu tenha a impressão de que toco, com a mão, esse meu sonho.

Julian Assange: Nabeel?

Nabeel Rajab: Acho que… No final de 2012, com Bouazizi, começou um tsunami. Acho que vai modificar toda a região. É possível que, dentro de alguns anos, toda a Região esteja diferente. Haverá governos locais mais inteligentes, que se transformarão e se reformarão, eles mesmos, muito rapidamente. E os governos que resistam, que tentem não mudar, acho que, esses, serão arrancados de seus postos, pelo tsunami. Esses governos, nos EUA ou na Europa, que construíram relações e interesses estratégicos comuns com aqueles ditadores, esses só têm o que perder. Os governos que consigam ver o que se passa e tratem de construir relações e interesses estratégicos, não com os governos, mas com as populações, com as pessoas, não com os ditadores, esses só têm o que ganhar. Sou muito otimista. Acredito que haverá mudanças positivas em nossa região.

Julian Assange: E nos momentos em que você está preso, ou foi sequestrado, ou está apanhando. Quando você está totalmente isolado, quando você não controla o espaço físico, não controla nem o próprio corpo… Quando absolutamente não há nenhuma liberdade, no sentido mais fundamental da palavra… O que você pensa, nessa hora? Como controla seus sentimentos, como você se vê, nesses momentos?

Nabeel Rajab: Creio que, se você tem um objetivo, se você acredita que seja justo, se você lutar, você supera as dificuldades. Você sabe que está lutando para mudar. As coisas estão aí há séculos, mudar é difícil. Para conseguir o que você quer conseguir, é preciso estar disposto a pagar um preço. Morrer, se for preciso. Eu acredito que as pessoas que orientam os movimentos no mundo árabe são pessoas que querem conseguir mudanças.

Julian Assange: ¿Alaa?

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Prisão é sempre uma merda [risos]. Essa é a segunda vez que sou… detido. Da última vez, enfrentei um fiscal militar e neguei-me a reconhecer a legitimidade do sistema judicial militar. Foi uma grande vitória, porque consegui que os militares me enviassem para os juízes civis de primeira instância, e um daqueles juízes mandou me prender. E houve um momento em que eu me sentia tão mal, tão mal, a ponto de desmaiar, quando queria desesperadamente sair de lá, porque meu primeiro filho estava nascendo, e eu lá preso, sem saber de nada. Acabei desmaiando. Meu filho nasceu e, três horas depois, minha família conseguiu mandar-me fotos dele. Naquele momento, na cadeia, nada fazia qualquer diferença para mim. Seja como for, tenho sorte, sempre estive rodeado de muito amor pessoal, mas também de solidariedade. Tenho a sorte e o privilégio de, sempre que me prendem, não demoro a receber sinais de solidariedade massiva, que sempre tem, também, caráter muito pessoal.

Julian Assange: Mesmo preso, você sabia do apoio externo?

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Sempre, sobretudo graças aos meus parentes, que me visitavam. Para mim, nunca foi isolamento impossível de superar. E estive preso, algumas vezes, em cela comum, com criminosos muito perigosos. Nada disso me incomodava. Mas, se me privassem das visitas dos meus parentes, isso… Não sei se aguentaria. (Mas não contem a eles!) [risos]

Julian Assange: Nabeel, você tem dois filhos, não é?

Nabeel Rajab: É, dois filhos.

Julian Assange: E você ensina seus filhos a serem militantes como o pai, sob risco de serem sequestrados, presos, espancados?

Nabeel Rajab: Mesmo que nunca ensinasse, eles vivem comigo e veem o que acontece… [risos, risos]

Julian Assange: Estão vendo o exemplo?

Nabeel Rajab: Meu filho e minha filha já participam de protestos, em muitos casos, vão à frente. Tirei os dois da escola, porque as coisas ficaram difíceis para eles. Estudam na mesma escola dos filhos das famílias que governam o Bahrein. Para eles, de fato, talvez seja até mais difícil do que para mim, porque eu luto há muito tempo e estou preparado para a reação contra. Mas eles… eles primeiro sofreram a reação, ainda sem entender por que, foram agredidos por razões que não entendiam. Viram a casa deles invadida no meio da noite, viram o pai ser arrastado da cama para a rua, viram o pai ser espancado diante deles. Minha casa já foi atacada mais de 20 vezes com granadas de gás lacrimogêneo, só no ano passado. Os meus filhos já viram coisas que a maioria das crianças da idade deles, no mundo, jamais viram. Mas aprenderam muito, também. São muito maduros, para a idade deles. Quando…

Julian Assange: E que idade têm seus filhos?

Nabeel Rajab: Minha filha tem nove; meu filho acaba de completar 14 anos. Sempre esteve comigo, nas manifestações, desde os cinco anos. Minha filha não gostava de ir. Não dava qualquer sinal de interesse por política ou direitos humanos. Mas, depois que fui sequestrado em casa, e recebi um tapa no rosto, no meio da sala, diante dela… Agora está convertida: é ativista radical [risos, risos]. Minha mulher também. Acho que toda a família, hoje, somos militantes. Somos mais de mil…

Julian Assange: Você fala do clã?

Nabeel Rajab: Sim, é minha família. Quer dizer, acho que a maioria deles, hoje, são ativistas. A verdade é que a revolução criou ativistas em todo o país, no Bahrein. Imagine o governo do Bahrein pondo-se a prender jornalistas, militantes de organizações internacionais de direitos humanos, para impedir que entrem no país… De fato, hoje, a própria população começa a trabalhar como jornalista, como defensores de direitos humanos, criam-se blogs na Internet, todos sentem-se militantes que defendem os direitos humanos no país.

Julian Assange: Agora, o mercado está oferecendo novos nichos.

Nabeel Rajab: Graças a Deus e ao governo do Bahrein, o movimento reuniu muitos jovens. Será vantagem para nós, e todo o mundo árabe vai-se beneficiar de suas revoluções.

Julian Assange: Alaa, seu filho vai crescer num novo Egito.

Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Também pensava assim, e pensava em ensinar meu filho a detestar futebol, para não ser morto. Depois, pensei em chamá-lo Khalid Saeed, em homenagem ao jovem que morreu em Alexandria, vítima das torturas da polícia, dois anos antes da revolução. No final, entendi que nada disso significa coisa alguma. Não há como proteger meu filho. Não faz sentido criá-lo tentando impedir que seja ativista ou defensor do governo. Não importa.

Quando se vive sob repressão, a violência tem um caráter tão aleatório, que sempre afeta todos, de todos os modos, de todos os lados. A injustiça e a violência são aleatórias, afetam sempre e não há como evitar que seja assim. Ninguém pode garantir uma boa vida aos próprios filhos, enquanto a boa vida de qualquer outro filho, de qualquer outro homem, não estiver garantida. Não depende de mim. Ninguém pode fazer coisa alguma só pelo próprio filho.

http://www.brasildefato.com.br/node/9590

-

Trade Unionist and Secretary of Newcastle Trades Hall, Gary Kennedy attended the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Congress in Sydney on May 15th 2012. His intention was to raise a motion from the floor of congress; that our government does more, and everything it can to protect Julian Assange.

Good point. This is one of our most honoured citizens, with 30 good years of good work ahead of him, if the following awards are anything to go on:

image: Somerset Bean

-

The Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism is awarded on an annual basis to journalists “whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or ‘official drivel’”.

The judges said: “WikiLeaks has been portrayed as a phenomenon of the hi-tech age, which it is. But it’s much more. Its goal of justice through transparency is in the oldest and finest tradition of journalism.”

We just witnessed a glimmer of hope: a strong judicial backlash against the National Defence Authorisation Act for violations of the First and Fifth Amendments; and a thumbs down in court for the NYPD, for continued discrimination against minorities. The Pentagon recently ditched extremist, anti-muslim curricula from its military schools and is hopefully debriefing the graduates by now. Maybe some schizoid knot is unravelling… and we can foresee a time when Assange’s life will no longer be on the line, or simply over, if Virginia’s Grand Jury succeed in pirouetting journalism into espionage.

If that doesn’t happen, Australians will be proud of Julian Assange and he will no doubt live up to Mr Kennedy’s expectations as a Senator.

http://thing2thing.com/?p=2203

Eric Holder, portrait of a man who matters – Part one: accusing Wikileaks

May 14, 2012 – by evablumdumontet

Attorney General Eric Holder has been at the forefront of the legal battle the United States have led against Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

In the American administration, the attorney general is both the head of the Department of Justice and the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. He is designated by the President of the United States and acts as his legal adviser. He also represents the US government in legal matters.

Back in December 2010, Eric Holder was the official figure designated to condemn Wikileaks’s actions and to announce the legal measures that would be taken against the organisation. He accused the organisation of putting “the safety of the American people at risk” and  announced that the Department of Justice and the Pentagon were undertaking criminal investigations. When asked how he could prosecute Assange, because of the complexity and uniqueness of the case, he responded:

“Let me be very clear, it is not saber rattling. To the extent there are gaps in our laws we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that’s on going.

Answering questions at a press conference he explained he had “authorized ‘significant’ actions aimed at prosecuting Wikileaks,” without explaining what they were. He added that the justice department was examining ways to stem the flow of leaked cables, a comment of particular significance, when one recalls that the banking blockade  started at the same period.

Eric Holder also came forward regarding the attacks Anonymous organised to avenge Wikileaks. At a news conference he explained that he was looking into “those incidents” and said that he was “hopeful that the people responsible for the WikiLeaks disclosures of classified information will be brought to justice.”

Yet, Eric Holder has also been the victim of harsh criticism from the Republican party and the target of their pressures, as they consider the Attorney General should have gone further in condemning Wikileaks. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House of Representatives Oversight Committee, who is in charge of investigating the government for waste and fraud, said Holder should quit his position if he was not able to prevent Wikileaks from publishing government documents. He also called for a new “whistle blower bill” that would tackle the issues brought up by Wikileaks.

Michelle Bachmann was also calling for his resignation, as she condemned his “inaction over the Wikileaks disclosure.”

Read More in the original link: https://wlgrandjury.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/eric-holder-portrait-of-a-man-who-matters-part-one-accusing-wikileaks/

—

Eric Holder, portrait of a man who matters -Part two: what the cables revealed about him

May 15, 2012 – by evablumdumontet

While the release of the Cablegate has unveiled his resentment against Wikileaks, Eric Holder was already known for his actions in the war against terrorism. A partisan of the “shoot first, ask question later” theory, he reminds the executive branch must make “real-time decisions” when handling terrorist.

Wikileaks cables have also revealed that when the Spanish interior minister visited Eric Holder they had signed an agreement allowing the sharing of fingerprints and other data of terrorists and criminals, “while protecting individual privacy”. The cable did not mention what measures had been taken to protect individual privacy…

Another cable from Madrid has shed light on the case of a NGO, which attempted to file a complaint against six US official who had created a legal framework to allow torture in Guantanamo. Since Spanish citizens had been tortured the NGO had hoped to see the American officials judged in Spain. Chief Prosecutor Javier Zaragoza acted as an informant, providing information on the case and potential flaws in the complaints. Eventually Spain declared that the NGO would have to file the complaint in the United States. The cable mentioned that meetings would be organised between Chief Prosecutor Javier Zaragoza and Eric Holder.

A cable from Rome showed Eric Holder was involved in discussions with other countries regarding the “relocation” of Guantanamo detainees.

However the cables mainly reveal the important influence of the US in law enforcement and criminality questions abroad. Eric Holder has thus been found helping Iraq in reinforcing its fight against criminality  and in “strengthening the Iraqi judiciary.”

A cable from Barbados, where Holder is originally from, depicted a similar desire to “modernize” the judicial system of other countries and develop cooperation in crime and security.

This intervening attitude the US have adopted toward other countries’ judiciary is an element that has already played an important part in Julian Assange’s legal fight against the United States, with the refusal of Australia to show any form of support, and may well influence his future battles.

Read More in the original link: https://wlgrandjury.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/eric-holder-portrait-of-a-man-who-matters-part-two-what-the-cables-revealed-about-him/

via: @stopwarsyd

-

Support #Assange & #WikiLeaks Coalition in Darling Harbour 2day 2 tell Gillard: stop bowing 2 Obama, stand up 4 Assange http://pic.twitter.com/CHTMPqTT

https://twitter.com/#!/stopwarsyd/status/202279256456314880/photo/1

Via @stopwarsyd

-

Liberate state secrets! #Assange & #WikiLeaks supporter protesting @JuliaGillard in Sydney today http://pic.twitter.com/fgtv7g9f

https://twitter.com/#!/stopwarsyd/status/202280122252918785/photo/1

15 Mayo 2012

El exprisionero de Guantánamo, Moazzam Begg, junto al defensor de los derechos de los que siguen recluidos, Assim Qureshi, revelan los secretos más profundos de la histórica cárcel en entrevista con Julian Assange.

Hace 10 años la guerra contra el terrorismo llevó a la apertura de Guantánamo, donde todavía permanecen 169 prisioneros, del total de 779 que han sido encarcelados desde su habilitación como centro de detención para sospechosos de actividades terroristas.

Después de pasar varios años en la prisión, Moazzam Begg fue liberado en 2005 sin ninguna acusación. Junto con Assim Qureshi, exabogado societario, ahora realiza una campaña por otros detenidos en esta guerra, a través de la organización islámica pro derechos humanos ‘Cageprisioners’ o ‘Jaula de prisioneros’. El imperio de la ley y un juicio justo son los objetivos centrales en su campaña.

Por la fuerza

Detrás de las rejas de Guantánamo, Begg firmó una confesión admitiendo que estaba armado y dispuesto a luchar junto a los Talibanes y Al Qaeda contra EE. UU., pero, dijo, “solo después de haber sido maniatado y golpeado ante las fotos de mis hijos, mientras escuchaba los gritos de una mujer de al lado la que me hicieron creer que era mi esposa”.

Las revelaciones del portal WikiLeaks acerca de la gran cantidad de civiles inocentes que no tienen ningún vínculo con organizaciones terroristas, representó un golpe a la reputación de EEUU, pero la cárcel permanece abierta.

El presidente estadounidense, Barack Obama, no solo rompió su promesa preelectoral de cerrar el Guantánamo, sino que promulgó la polémica Ley de Autorización de Defensa Nacional, que permite la custodia militar de personas sospechosas de terrorismo sin tener cargos ni optar a un juicio.

Assange y sus entrevistados analizan la situación que viven los musulmanes en todo el mundo tras el 11-S, la línea sutil entre el terror y la autodefensa y la opinión firme de Begg sobre que Obama ha dado paso a una era en la que “la ejecución extrajudicial” reemplaza a “la detención extrajudicial”.

La primera edición del programa de RT presentado por el fundador de WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, se estrenó el 17 de abril, fecha en la que se cumplieron 500 días del bloqueo financiero al sitio web especializado en filtraciones, y causó una verdadera sensación en todo el mundo.

En el marco de la serie de programas, que cuenta con 10 capítulos, Assange conversa con iconoclastas, visionarios y expertos del poder, con la intención de analizar el futuro de la comunidad mundial.

Pueden ver la entrevista completa aquí.

(Tomado de Russia Today: http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/44623-Sobrevivir-a-Guantánamo-Assange-desnuda-‘las-entrañas’-de-cruda-vida-en-prisión )

Don’t shoot the messenger

The worldwide furore caused by WikiLeaks will be the subject of a public seminar by University of Adelaide law Associate Professor and online media expert Dr Melissa de Zwart on Monday 21 May.

Dr de Zwart’s lecture, WikiLeaks, Google and Facebook: How Terms of Use Control Information, will address the fallout from WikiLeaks and the implications for freedom of speech and the internet as a global networked public sphere.

“How is it that what is essentially a one-person organisation can have attracted such a level of hatred from the US Government in particular?” Dr de Zwart asks.

“What does the concerted effort to shut WikiLeaks down and to silence Julian Assange tell us about the effectiveness of the internet as a communications medium?”

Dr de Zwart will examine why public law has failed to silence WikiLeaks when the law of contract and the exercise of private regulation has been so successful.

“WikiLeaks is a new model of online news dissemination. Its structure, operations and motivations are little understood, despite the worldwide furore caused by the publication of a series of documents in the last two years.

“The fallout from the publication of WikiLeaks material has resulted in the withdrawal of service by numerous providers, including Amazon, Mastercard, VISA and Paypal. This has effectively limited WikiLeaks’ operations when more direct attacks have not,” Dr de Zwart said.

Her lecture will cover the legal and cultural context of the internet and why the small print should never be ignored.

The lecture will be held on Monday 21 May in the Moot Court, Adelaide Law School, Ligertwood Building at 5pm. To register go to www.law.adelaide.edu.au/events/lawweek/

To watch a video of Associate Professor Melissa de Zwark discussing her upcoming lecture, please visit the University of Adelaide’s YouTube page: http://youtu.be/2o2JEsZlDpE

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/adelaidean/issues/52601/news52602.html?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=promo&utm_campaign=Adelaidean

By Max Atkinson – posted Tuesday, 15 May 2012

According to Geoffrey Robertson QC, human rights lawyer and adviser to Julian Assange, the British Supreme Court is likely to rule on his appeal against extradition this month. The personal consequences for Assange are grave, and unlikely to end in Sweden: the U.S. has now arranged a secret grand jury indictment to deport him for trial in America for crimes yet to be clarified but which, if proved, may see him imprisoned for many years.

Those who follow the case will know the sole issue is whether a Swedish prosecutor is a ‘judicial authority’ able to issue an arrest warrant under the Extradition Act. They may also know, through widely publicised remarks by his legal advisers, that English law sees this as an abuse of rights, contrary to ideals implicit in the separation of powers. The Supreme Court has granted an appeal because this issue has ‘great public importance’.

They are less likely to be aware the case raises a major issue of legal philosophy, posing a choice between competing theories of law, each with its idea of how legal principles operate. This theoretical issue will decide Assange’s fate because it will define the nature of his rights and how much protection they confer in a world where civilised nations resort to secrecy, rendition and torture in the name of national security and the public interest.

This jurisprudential issue went unseen by the High Court in Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority, which dismissed his earlier appeal in July 2011, arguably due to the pervasive influence of a popular but controversial theory of law, it led the Court to interpret principles of justice governing his arrest by deferring to a Swedish practice which ignored them. This is a strong criticism, calling for careful examination of the judgment.

In a lengthy preamble to its decision, the High Court began by emphasising the role of principles protecting ‘fundamental’ rights, some with a history tracing back to Magna Carta. It emphasised the importance of these principles by citing from the Framework Decision, a pre-legislative treaty agreed to by Member States of the new extradition scheme, which said the aim of the scheme was to make it easier for justice to be administered across borders, at the same time protecting citizens’ rights, adding

‘That protection was buttressed by national courts remaining subject to rules protecting fundamental rights,particularly the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The existence of the rights and the observance of those rights by the courts were intended to underpin a regime in which there would be mutual confidence.’

Although the Framework Decision is not mentioned in the British Act, the High Court explained that these principles and rights were ‘fundamental’, and its duty was to interpret the Act in light of this Framework treaty. It noted that the aim of mutual recognition was ‘subject to’ these constraints of justice.

Importantly, it did not see these principles as a British invention. They were ‘principles universally accepted in Europe’ and applicable to all Member States. Although it made no attempt to spell them out, it implicitly rejected any idea that they were national artefacts. Accordingly, member nations might have different laws and arrest practices, but this did not mean they were governed by different principles of justice. It meant that opinions as to what these principles require might vary, in which case courts must resolve the issue.

This is the same task an appellate court has when faced with conflicting interpretations of a constitutional principle by lesser courts in the same jurisdiction. It is important to make this point because media accounts of the trial see it as a conflict between different value systems – between British ideals of justice and Swedish principles which appear to ignore rights. This popular view adds drama to, but seriously confuses, the public debate.

However that may be, to dispel any doubts as to their authority the High Court explained that, if the Swedish Ministry of Justice were given power to issue warrants by Swedish law, this would be invalid, since it was ‘self-evidently’ not a judicial authority. This is, on its face, reassuring; it reminds us that not even a Minister of State, backed by democratic theory and the Swedish parliament, can ignore rights affirmed by all parties to the scheme.

But the judgment quickly reneged; it ruled that these basic rights would not disqualify a public prosecutor, with no greater interest in or duty to respect them than a justice ministry, and whose primary role was to bring criminals to justice, not defend them against unproven allegations. The Court did not say why it took this path, relying simply on an interpretation of ‘judicial’ broad enough to include prosecutors. It did so despite saying the statutory aim of mutual recognition was ‘subject to’ the principles, which disqualify a Minister’s warrant.

This contradiction was inherent in the Act, which imposed incompatible duties on judges. It asked them to recognise arrest practices of member nations while abiding by Framework principles which condemned them. This seems so obvious that a cynic might say the Act was drafted to avoid an invidious political decision: to rely on the judges, rather than politicians, to ignore rights everyone agrees are important. This, he might add, is why the Act itself made no attempt to clarify the matter.

Faced with this problem the High Court sought to resolve it by looking for an interpretation of ‘judicial authority’ able to accommodate Swedish practice and found it, not surprisingly, in Swedish practice, which gave powers of arrest to prosecutors, recognised their independence, and accepted them as members of judicial associations. It failed to see that, by citing national practice to interpret principles meant to govern it, it must negate the rights they protect.

How could such experienced judges could fall into this tautological trap? The question invites a closer look at a theory of law, referred to above, which is widely influential among practitioners and judges. The theory, known as ‘legal positivism’, sees law in empirical terms as a model of rules that are the product of law making bodies, primarily legislatures and courts. For a rule to be a rule of law there must be a judge or other authoritative person or body who, at a given time and place, made it so; be it to resolve a dispute or implement a legislative policy.

The theory says that if there is no clear rule, or conflicting rules by courts with equal authority, judges have discretion to ‘make’ law to clarify the matter. Hence if a rule prohibits vehicles in the park, it excludes trucks, cars and motorbikes, probably ride-on lawn mowers and electric bicycles, but what about scooters, wheelchairs, push carts, hovercraft and model airplanes? In these ‘penumbral’ cases the theory insists that, because unclear law equates to no law, the court must decide what the law should be. It can now pursue a policy of its own, be it to deter noisy children or to encourage use of the park by the disabled.

The theory treats legal principles as less articulate rules which, being vaguer, confer more law-making power. Judges will be guided by previous interpretations but the spongy nature of principles is such that the central core of clear law may be small: the penumbra of unclear law large. It means judges interpreting principles will be making new rules, adding to the list of rules which collectively define their meaning. In doing so they exercise discretion akin to that of the legislature. They are free to pursue social goals of their choice, in Assange’s case either to support government policy by making extradition easier or to protect his rights.

This ‘realist’ view of principled decision-making is widely taken for granted by lawyers, political pundits and others, and has great influence on public debates. It underlies the main objection to a bill of rights, that it gives unelected judges immense power to legislate social policy. That complaint will remain as long as the positivist theory holds sway.

But this theory has grave flaws, as Ronald Dworkin, successor to the late HLA Hart in the Oxford Chair of Jurisprudence, explained nearly half-a-century ago. Law, he argued, cannot rest on a simple model of rules, and unclear law cannot be equated with a licence to make law. Legal principles, he reasoned, do not confer this kind of discretion; they are abstract but fully articulated standards, which impose a different kind of obligation on judges, but still govern the decision. They are, it might be said, designed for unclear cases – their logic is adapted to this role in that, unlike rules, they have dimensions of both weight and point, which judges must judge. But if judges have this duty they are not free to pursue social goals  – in Dworkin’s words, they are never off the hook of obligation.

Despite this account (the full thesis is in Law’s Empire, Fontana, 1986) which, after decades of argument and hundreds of books and articles, no one has yet managed to refute, the law-making theory has enduring appeal for lawyers. This is in part because it is seen as a ‘realist’ response to the more ambitious claims of classical Natural Law theory, its historical enemy, but also as a refutation of ‘mechanical jurisprudence’, a fictitious theory of law invented to confirm its own superiority. Its continuing appeal is a testament to the value of Keyne’s warning about ‘practical’ men being the slaves of yesterday’s theory.

What influence, if any, did positivist thinking have on the Assange ruling, given the Act chose not to define the meaning of ‘judicial authority’, leaving this crucial law unclear? The theory says judges must do their best to fill the gap. They were free to support U.K. policy by dismissing the appeal, or protect Assange’s rights by allowing it. But this is where the theory comes unstuck because the idea that his rights should depend on such idiosyncratic factors as the policy preferences of judges is so repugnant to the judicial mind, and to the ideal of the rule of law, that it was never likely to be a conscious reason.

Instead the judges, aware their duty was to clarify rights not make social policy – a role for which they have neither mandate nor expertise – took the traditional path and sought to rest their decision on the ordinary, literal meaning of the Act, which they saw as an issue of fact; their ruling would then be impartial, because facts are not matters of choice.

The difficulty with this ‘objective’ approach was that the facts showed the meaning of ‘judicial authority’ in the UK was different to its meaning in Sweden so the decision, if one is a positivist, still required judicial choice. Assange’s fate was sealed when the Court opted for Swedish usage which, reflecting Swedish practice, furthered a policy of recognition, rather than a British common law meaning which protected his rights. So in the end the positivist theory prevailed. There is no hint of this anywhere in the judgment because the choice is never made explicit, and perhaps the judges themselves were not aware of it.

The second problem with this ‘objective’ approach is that the Court ignored its own advice that the Act must be read in light of the European Framework Decision and the basic rights and principles it espoused, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. If the Act must be read in light of these rights and principles, there is no room to choose a meaning for policy reasons.

If we now ask what this case has to do with legal philosophy, the answer seems clear: If judges could stand back from the theory which treats legal principles as fuzzier rules calling for judicial choice, they might see them as standards of a different kind, as precise in the duty they impose on courts as rules, and whose raison d’etre they have an obligation to interpret, just as they have a duty to assess their weight – they had, after all, more than enough weight to invalidate the arrest warrant of a Swedish minister.

Those interested in the rule of law as a moral and constitutional ideal will be anxious to see if Britain’s highest court can do a better job of defending it.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13615&page=0

Monday 14th of May 2012

Published by Democracy Now

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/14/noam_chomsky_on_wikileaks_obamas_targeted

Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with Noam Chomsky. I spoke with him last week in the courtyard of the King Juan Carlos I Center at New York University. I asked him about WikiLeaks.

NOAM CHOMSKY: I don’t see anything that’s come out on WikiLeaks that was a legitimate secret. I mean, WikiLeaks is a service to the population. Assange should get an award for—presidential medal of honor. He’s—the whole WikiLeaks operation has helped inform people about what their elected representatives are doing. That should be a wonderful thing to do, like—and it’s interesting. Nothing really sensational has come out, but it is interesting to know, for example, that when the Obama administration effectively supported the military coup in Honduras that kicked out the democratic government and put in a—what amounts to a military-backed government, that they knew exactly what they were doing, because the embassy in—we learn from WikiLeaks that the embassy in Honduras had presented a detailed analysis right at the beginning of the coup that expelled the president and said, “Yeah, this is unconstitutional, it’s illegal,” you know, and so on. So, yes, they knew exactly what they were doing when Obama and Clinton were saying, “Well, you know, it’s not that bad. Everything is going fine,” and so on.

Or, for example, when Anne Patterson, the ambassador to Pakistan—this is some of the most interesting revelations. She supports U.S. policy in AfPak, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but she did warn that U.S. policies of, you know, assassinations, pressures on Pakistan, and so on, carry a real danger. They carry the danger of radicalizing Pakistan and—where opposition to these policies is enormous, and maybe creating even a situation where its nuclear facilities would be accessible to jihadi elements. So it’s creating terrific danger. In fact, Pakistan is way more dangerous to U.S. security than Afghanistan, which is nothing. Well, it’s good to know that they were getting that information. They were getting that information from analysts, you know, people who write about it and know about it, but the fact that they were getting it from the embassy is significant, when you think about how these policies were escalated. And, in fact, it’s quite striking that the policies are undertaken in ways which almost—it’s almost as if they’re consciously trying to increase the threat.

So, take, say, the assassination of Osama bin Laden. I mean, I’m a small minority of people who think that was a crime. I don’t think you should have a right to invade another country, apprehend a suspect—remember, he’s a suspect, even if you think he’s guilty—apprehend him, after he’s apprehended and defenseless, assassinate him and throw his body into the ocean. Yeah, civilized countries don’t do that sort of thing. But—and notice that it was undertaken at great risk. The Navy SEALs were under orders to fight their way out, if there was a problem. If they had had to fight their way out, they would have gotten air cover and probably intervention. We could have been at war with Pakistan. Pakistan has a professional army. They’re dedicated to protecting the sovereignty of the state, very dedicated to it, and they wouldn’t take this lightly. A war with Pakistan would be an utter disaster. It’s one of the huge nuclear facilities, laced with radical Islamic elements. They’re not a big part of the population, but they’re all over. But they did it anyway. Then, right after it, when Pakistan was, you know, totally outraged, we carried out more drone attacks in Pakistan, almost—you know, it’s kind of astonishing when you look at the planning, quite apart from the criminality.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the U.S. increased reliance—President Obama increasingly using drones to attack people in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and beyond?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Good comment about that made by Yochi Dreazen. He’s the military correspondent—was the military correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, is now for some other outfit, a military analyst. He pointed out accurately—this after the killing of Osama bin Laden, which he approved of, but he said that there’s an interesting difference between Bush and Obama. I mean, I’m now paraphrasing in my own terms, not his terms, so the way I would have said it is: Bush—if Bush, the Bush administration, didn’t like somebody, they’d kidnap them and send them to torture chambers; if the Obama administration decides they don’t like somebody, they murder them, so you don’t have to have torture chambers all over.

Actually, that tells us something else. Just take a look at the first Guantánamo detainee to go to trial under Obama. Trial means military commission, whatever that is. The first one was a very interesting case and tells us a lot. The first one was Omar Khadr. And what was his crime? His crime was that when he was 15 years old, he tried to defend his village against an attack by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. So that’s the crime, therefore he’s a terrorist. So he was sent to Bagram, then to Guantánamo, eight years in these torture chambers. And then he came up for trial under Obama. And he was given a choice: you can plead not guilty and stay in Guantánamo for the rest of your life, or you can plead guilty and get another eight years. So his lawyers advised him to plead guilty. Well, that’s justice under our constitutional law president, for a 15-year-old kid defending his village against an attacking army. And there was nothing said—the worst part is, there’s nothing said about it.

Actually, the same is true of the Awlaki killing, you know, this American cleric in Yemen who was killed by drones. He was killed. The guy next to him was killed. Shortly after, his son was killed. Now, there was a little talk about the fact that he was an American citizen: you shouldn’t just murder American citizens. But, you know, the New York Times headline, for example, when he was killed, said something like “West celebrates death of radical cleric.” First of all, it wasn’t death, it was murder. And the West celebrates the murder of a suspect. He’s a suspect, after all. There was something done almost 800 years ago called the Magna Carta, which is the foundation of Anglo-American law, that says that no one shall be subjected to a violation of rights without due process of law and a fair and speedy trial. It doesn’t say, if you think somebody’s a suspect, you should kill them.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the media has improved at all, as you assess it over these decades, right now?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I think it’s better than it was. I’m not a great fan of the media, but I think, if you compare them to, say, the ’50s and the ’60s, it’s considerably improved.

AMY GOODMAN: Because there’s competition and because people have access to other information, it puts pressure on the establishment media?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I don’t think so. In fact, it’s more monopolized than it was then. I think it’s because the country has changed. It’s a much more civilized country than it was, I mean, if you think back what things were like in the ’60s. And first of all, you know, you have to—take, say, women’s rights. I mean, throughout American history, up ’til quite recently, under law, women were basically property. They were the property of their fathers and their husbands. I mean, in the early years of the country, the argument against women voting was that it wouldn’t be fair, because then the husband would get two votes, since obviously the wife has to do what she’s told, you know. And, in fact, until the 1970s, women didn’t have a guaranteed right to serve on juries, because they were considered—you know, couldn’t do that kind of thing. If you go back to the universities in the early ’60s, my university, it was, you know, obedient, deferential white males. All of that has changed.

It’s changed in many other respects. You mentioned gay rights. I mean, that would have been—you know, you couldn’t even utter the words not many years ago. And there are laws against sodomy, up until recently, maybe still. And it’s the same in England. There was just a dramatic case there. I don’t know if you’ve been following it. But one of the great mathematicians of the 20th century, Alan Turing, who was also a British war hero—he’s the one who pretty much decrypted the German codes and saved Britain from attack—well, he was a homosexual. In the early 1950s—that’s against British law. Early 1950s, he was subjected to treatment to cure him of this disease. The treatment was so grotesque, he finally committed suicide. Well, that’s, you know, a long time ago, that’s 1954. Now, Prime Minister Cameron was just asked whether time has come to issue a belated pardon. It’s the hundredth anniversary of his birth. And he said, “No, he violated British law. No pardon for that.” So, OK, we killed—basically killed this war hero and great mathematician because he was violating British law. Well, you know, that’s—that’s changed a lot, maybe not in Cameron’s office, but—and it’s changed in many ways. And that’s affected the media, because, you know, the people working there, who—a lot of women, went through these experiences.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, what gives you hope?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, lots of—right here, for example. Take the Occupy movement. That’s very striking and dramatic. Or take where we are today. We’re in a meeting of NACLA, North American Congress on Latin America. What’s happened in Latin America in the last 10 years is just spectacular. I mean, in the last 10 years, for the first time in—since the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors—that’s half a millennium—Latin America has freed itself, substantially freed itself from Western domination and control, meaning mainly U.S.

In fact, there was a just very dramatic example of it just a couple of weeks ago at the Cartagena hemispheric conference, which is very important. It was kind of suppressed here. There was some Secret Service scandal, but there were really interesting things that happened. This is a hemispheric conference. There were two major issues. There was no declaration, because you couldn’t get agreement. The two issues were Cuba and drugs. The whole hemisphere wants Cuba to be admitted to the hemispheric—to the summit. The U.S. refused—U.S. and Canada refused. On drugs, practically the whole hemisphere is pressing for decriminalization, because they’re suffering the brunt of the—you know, they are the ones who get hit in the solar plexus. The demand for drugs is here. The supply of arms is here. And they suffer from it. So they want to move towards decriminalization. U.S. and Canada refused.

U.S. and Canada are isolated in the hemisphere. And in fact, there’s a new organization, just formed about a year ago, CELAC, which formally excludes the U.S. and Canada, includes everyone else. It’s quite possible that that may replace the Organization of American States, which is U.S.-run. One sign of it is the U.S. has been essentially kicked out of its military bases in South America. They’re also moving towards dealing with some of their internal problems, which are severe.

And the other thing that’s exciting there is the role of popular movements. I mean, there are mass popular movements of indigenous people, working people, others who have just been—you know, who have been extremely successful in substantially changing policy. That’s of historic significance.

AMY GOODMAN: So, the Occupy movement gives you hope. Latin America gives you hope.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Arab Spring. I mean, there are a lot of interesting things happening in the world. But I think consciousness is changing on a lot of things. I mentioned the attitudes of kids 18 to 24, which is pretty bad, but I think that can be changed, too.

AMY GOODMAN: MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, world-renowned scholar, dissident and linguist. He has taught more than half a century at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s Institute Professor and professor of linguistics. I interviewed him last week here in New York at the 45th anniversary celebration of NACLA, the North American Congress on Latin America, where he was being honored. Noam Chomsky is the author of over a hundred books, most recently, Occupy.

15/may/2012 by mmcetera

-

-

14/may/2012 by RussiaToday

-

-

An expose of the cruel reality of life inside Guantanamo Bay. On Tuesday, RT is bringing you the 5th installment of Julian Assange’s new show, featuring a former inmate from the controversial prison. RT’s correspondent in London Laura Smith has got more on the interview, and what it reveals on the workings of the war on terror.

The World Tomorrow – official video page: http://assange.rt.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoXFDlPKae8&feature=youtu.be

14 May, 2012

Julian Assange speaks with Moazzam Begg and Asim Qureshi

The latest episode of The World Tomorrow takes us to the very heart of America’s War on Terror: Guantanamo Bay. Julian Assange sat down with a former Gitmo prisoner and a rights campaigner fighting for those still trapped behind the wire.

Ten years ago the war on terror prompted the opening of the facility.  Now, more than three years after President Obama ordered its closure, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, like the war in Afghanistan, remains with us. Over a year ago, Wikileaks blew the lid on Gitmo by releasing a cache of files that exposed the inner workings of the infamous prison where 169 remain without hope of trial or release.

Moazzam Begg, born and raised in the UK, was imprisoned for years in Guantanamo as an Al Qaeda suspect. He amazingly managed to secure his release in 2005 after lobbying his government.

Asim Qureshi is a former corporate lawyer, whose human rights organization Cageprisoners Ltd exists solely to raise awareness of the plight of prisoners who remain in Guantanamo Bay.

Begg signed a confession admitting he “was armed and prepared to fight alongside the Taliban and Al Qaeda against the US,” but only after being hog-tied and beaten as he listened “to the sound of a woman screaming next door I’m told or am led to believe is my wife.”

Together, both men discuss the plight of Muslims in the post 9/11 world, the thin line between terror and self-defense, and how Begg believes Obama has ushered in an era where “extra-judicial killing” has replaced “extra-judicial detention.”

Stay tuned and watch the new episode of Assange’s “The World Tomorrow” exclusively on RT, Tuesday, 11:30

http://rt.com/news/assange-world-tomorrow-guantanamo-bay-209/

The readers were right: Assange wasn’t charged and Babe Ruth had his clothes on

May 9, 2012 – Sao Paulo, Brazil

When most people think of Brazil, it’s the incredible beaches that come to mind. Or the crazy parties of Carnival. Or the spectacular vistas and great weather. Or how indescribably gorgeous (and welcoming) the locals are.

But here’s a little known fact, and it’s something that sets Brazil apart from most other places: Brazil’s constitution prohibits the extradition of Brazilian citizens to other countries. This is a rare gem in the world… I’ll explain.

Believe it or not, most countries are happy to sell their citizens down the river to another government. If you have been charged with a crime in another country, or are even simply ‘wanted for questioning’, your home government in all likelihood will comply with the request to round you up and ship you off.

For example, only 7% of all extradition requests that the US government made to the British government between 1 January 2004 and 31 July 2009 were denied. The US government denied ZERO extradition requests from the British government over the same period.

You may also be familiar the ongoing case of Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange, who is wanted in Sweden for “questioning” related to bizarre sex case.

The British government approved Sweden’s extradition request, though Assange has appealed the decision numerous times. He’s lost every appeal so far, and in all likelihood he’ll be on a plane bound for Sweden in the near future.

Assange is an Australian citizen, and his government has completely abandoned him.

You may also remember the more recent case of Kim Dotcom, the German founder of MegaUpload.com who was arrested in New Zealand as part of a US operation to shut down his file-sharing site. Like Assange, the German government has been silent.

This is ironic because most people are brought up to believe that their governments will protect them… that if you get into a jam overseas, they’ll send the military to rescue you.

The reality is that, far more often, governments trade their own citizens away in order to score diplomatic brownie points, even when there’s not even a crime involved.

The US-Mexico extradition treaty, for example, lists a number of extraditable offenses, such as:

- Violations of the customs laws
- Offenses against copyright or intellectual property
- Offenses related to international trade and transfers of funds or valuable metals
- Offenses relating to prohibition “unfair transactions”

We’re not exactly talking about violent criminals here; these rules so opaque that just about everyone on the planet is in violation of some offense.

That’s why Brazil’s Constitutional guarantee is so refreshing. Brazil has a long history of rejecting extradition requests for citizens… and if Assange and Dotcom had thought that far ahead, they’d be sitting on the beach in Rio right now instead of wearing electronic ankle bracelets under house arrest.

Needless to say, this requires obtaining Brazilian citizenship… which, if you’re in a hurry, you can qualify for in just 12-months. More on that in a future letter, I’ve got a plane to catch!

Read more: http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/in-case-you-really-have-to-flee-the-authorities/#ixzz1uTTRKJu2

May 9th, 2012 by Steven Aftergood

The Department of Defense has issued a new Instruction defining its response to the “insider threat” from Department personnel who engage in unauthorized disclosures of information or other activities deemed harmful to national security.

The new Instruction assigns responsibilities and authorities for systematically detecting “anomalous” employee behavior that may be an indication of an insider threat.

An insider threat is defined as “A person with authorized access, who uses that access, wittingly or unwittingly, to harm national security interests or national security through unauthorized disclosure, data modification, espionage, terrorism, or kinetic actions resulting in loss or degradation of resources or capabilities.”

A subset of the insider threat is the counterintelligence (CI) insider threat, which refers to an authorized individual who uses his access on behalf of a “foreign intelligence entity.”

A foreign intelligence entity (FIE) is “Any known or suspected foreign organization, person, or group (public, private, or governmental) that conducts intelligence activities to acquire U.S. information, blocks or impairs U.S. intelligence collection, influences U.S. policy, or disrupts U.S. systems and programs.”

All heads of DoD components are now instructed to “implement CI insider threat initiatives to identify DoD-affiliated personnel suspected of or actually compromising DoD information on behalf of an FIE.”

All military departments are expected to “conduct anomaly-based detection activities.”

See “Countering Espionage, International Terrorism, and the Counterintelligence (CI) Insider Threat,” DoD Instruction 5240.26, May 4, 2012.

The new Instruction complies with a congressional mandate in the FY2012 defense authorization act that was passed last year in response to the WikiLeaks disclosures.

https://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/05/dod_insider_threat.html

This article has been updated on 3 May 2012 – see below

After dodging and delaying FOI requests about its consideration of the case of Julian Assange for months, the government has blocked the release of any material that would reveal its internal legal deliberations over Assange’s extradition to the United States.

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam made an FOI application to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Attorney-General’s Department and their respective ministerial offices in December seeking documents relating to “the potential extradition or temporary surrender” of Assange to the US.

The response of the government has been a litany of excuses and self-justifications.

After several months, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is still seeking to avoid responding. In March, DFAT said it would take them a remarkable four months to process the request and demanded that Ludlam justify why a request for documents about Assange’s extradition was a matter in the public interest. At the end of March, DFAT demanded another 30 days on top of the four months, on the basis that they’d only just realised they would have to consult with foreign governments over the request.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet quickly fobbed off the request entirely by claiming that the request “would unreasonably divert the resources of the department”, an excuse permitted under s.24 of the FOI Act.

So far only Attorney-General’s has responded, after trying to unsuccessfully convince the Information Commissioner to re-extend the deadline for responding, and actually breaching the response deadline. The result (PDF), when it finally arrived in late March, featured extensive use of the famous black highlighter and bordered on nonsensical.

Among the treasures served up by Attorney-General’s were:

• Emails relating to AGD secretary Roger Wilkins questions about Assange’s extradition, redacted to the point of meaninglessness, on the basis of “legal professional privilege”;
• Detailed advice to Wilkins about Assange’s extradition, including the issue of his facing the death penalty, was entirely redacted (legal professional privilege)
• A question time brief for Robert McClelland, in which both the talking points and the background material is almost entirely redacted because it “could cause damage to Australia’s international relations”
• Emails between departmental staff about a request from McClelland’s office for “lines” for use in response to possible questions about Assange after a newspaper article.
• Correspondence from people concerned about the issue and media articles
• Some of the Greens’ own correspondence and notices of motion, one of which was bizarrely redacted despite being a public document.

The redactions prevent any assessment of what exactly the government knows about the US government’s sealed indictment for Assange. The government has played dumb on the issue, publicly declaring it knows nothing about the matter, despite it apparently being common knowledge in Washington circles (as revealed by the Stratfor emails) that a sealed indictment against Assange had been issued.

Update

Late today the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade sought an additional month to respond to Senator Ludlam’s FOI request “on the basis that continuing international consultation and the complexity of decision-making required prior to finalising the documents for release.” The continuing consultation raises the possibility of the US or Swedish governments seeking to veto the release of documents under Freedom of Information. DFAT’s deadline for responding will, if the Office of the Information Commissioner agrees, be extended to 3 June (DFAT has withdrawn the claim that it will take it 4 months to process the request). The new deadline effectively ensures that the Australian Government’s position vis-à-vis Assange won’t be revealed before the outcome of his appeal against his European Arrest Warrant is concluded.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/04/18/julian-assange-freedom-of-information-requests/

The Australian Greens are demanding the Australian Government take action to ensure WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange’s legal and consular rights are upheld.

 -

-

The Australian Greens are demanding the Australian Government take action to ensure WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange’s legal and consular rights are upheld.

On 1-2 February, Mr Assange’s appeal in the UK Supreme Court was heard on whether a prosecutor is a judicial authority and can legitimately issue a European Arrest Warrant. The decision by the 7 Supreme Court justices considering the matter could come as soon as 1 March, after which Mr Assange could find himself on his way to a holding cell in Stockholm. Thereafter, there is the potential for him to be transferred to the United States.

We are concerned that our government has done nothing to investigate the secret US Grand Jury investigation into Wikileaks, which could lead to Assange’s extradition to the US.

Read more: http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/wikileaks

SEP (Australia) first national congress

9 May 2012

The following is the sixth of seven resolutions passed unanimously at the first national congress of the Socialist Equality Party (Australia) held from April 6 to 9, 2012 in Sydney (see: “Australian SEP holds first national congress”).See resolutions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.

1. This Congress denounces the Labor government’s intimate involvement in the conspiracy by the Obama administration to railroad WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to jail. By refusing to defend the basic legal rights of the Australian citizen, the Gillard government has played a crucial role in the operation against him.

2. The persecution of Assange and WikiLeaks is part of a full-scale global assault on basic political and democratic rights. Its aim is to intimidate and silence mounting popular opposition to the program of militarism and austerity being imposed on working people around the world.

3. Internal emails obtained from the US private intelligence firm Stratfor indicate that the Obama administration has had a secret Grand Jury indictment against Assange since December 2010. Detained in Britain for more than a year, he faces extradition to Sweden on baseless sex charges. The entire frame-up is designed to pave the way for Assange’s extradition to the US, where he would be tried under the reactionary Espionage Act of 1917.

4. What is in store for the WikiLeaks founder has already been carried out against alleged WikiLeaks source Private Bradley Manning. Manning has been incarcerated in US military brigs for nearly two years, and subjected to solitary confinement, forced nakedness, sleep deprivation and other torture. The purpose is to force him into a plea bargain that will provide a basis for the US government’s case against Assange.

5. Washington is campaigning to vilify Assange and destroy WikiLeaks because the site has exposed thousands of documents detailing US killings of civilians and complicity in torture in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with numerous other crimes previously hidden from the world’s population. Among the cables made public are those revealing the close involvement of the US embassy with the Labor powerbrokers who ousted Kevin Rudd as prime minister in mid-2010, and installed Julia Gillard.

6. Gillard has backed the persecution of Assange from the outset. In December 2010—just as the Grand Jury was being secretly convened—she publicly declared, without any evidence or legal justification, the WikiLeaks publication of US cables “illegal.” Her government did everything possible to assist the US operation, authorising an investigation by intelligence services and the Australian Federal Police to dig up whatever they could find to try and compromise Assange.

7. By throwing Assange to the wolves, Labor seeks to cover up Washington’s crimes and the role of Australian governments in them, as well as to keep a lid on the broader machinations of US imperialism and their implications for the working class. The Gillard government is playing a no less pernicious role than the Howard government did when it backed the Bush administration’s detention of two Australian citizens, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, along with more than 650 other prisoners, at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in defiance of the Geneva Conventions and international law.

8. The operations against all three men have been part of the ongoing and fraudulent “war on terrorism.” Starting with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, this “war” has provided the pretext for military aggression abroad, and a barrage of police-state measures at home. Like the Obama administration, which has deepened the far-reaching assault on democratic rights and precedents launched under Bush, the Labor government has escalated and institutionalised the authoritarian “anti-terror” measures initiated by its predecessor.

9. The bipartisan assault on democratic rights has been endorsed by the entire political establishment, including the Greens. The minority Labor government, which is propped up by the Greens, has retained and intensified all the draconian measures introduced since 2000—detention without trial, secret interrogation, military call-out legislation, an unprecedented military intervention into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, and ever harsher anti-refugee laws.

10. The record demonstrates the lack of any significant constituency within Australian ruling circles for a commitment to fundamental democratic and legal rights. With barely a murmur in the media, Labor has repeatedly blocked legal actions challenging Canberra’s participation in US-led torture, renditions and Guantánamo Bay detentions, as well as arbitrary deportations and ASIO black-bans of refugees, and seizures of the passports of Australian citizens.

11. The deepening crisis of the capitalist system is at the root of these measures. It has become increasingly impossible for the ruling elites to impose militarism, glaring inequality and the ongoing assault on social and working conditions by democratic means.

12. This Congress salutes the courageous stand taken by Assange and WikiLeaks and will fight for their defence. Assange and WikiLeaks have helped lay bare, in the eyes of millions of people globally, the real conduct and character of the US and other governments around the world, including in Canberra.

13. This Congress demands the immediate release of both Assange and Manning. It insists that the defence of their democratic rights is inseparable from the fight to mobilise the working class against the Labor government, which is a direct accomplice of Washington’s conspiracy against them. Democratic rights cannot be defended through the decayed façade of parliament, but only through the fight for a workers’ government, committed to the reorganisation of society on the basis of human need, not private profit, and the establishment of genuine democracy in every aspect of economic, political and social life.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/res6-m09.shtml