Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive

[Peter Lemkin]

2011-01-12 US Politicians call for Wikileaks Sanctions
Submitted by GeorgieBC on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 06:54


Peter King, the Republican who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security and whose hypocritical zeal in persecuting Wikileaks was explored in an article on December 7, 2010 by our own x7o, continues his campaign. According to an article in Nasdaq he has asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Wednesday to prohibit people and companies within the U.S. from doing business with Wikileaks or Julian Assange. He would like both to be placed on the Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons List, which the Treasury Department can use to bar companies and individuals subject to U.S. jurisdiction from conducting business with a given entity.

King noted that some U.S. companies had voluntarily cut off ties to Wikileaks, but that a New York publisher had recently agreed to pay Assange for an autobiography. Assange has said the book fees would help "keep Wikileaks afloat."

"The U.S. government simply cannot continue its ineffective piecemeal approach of responding in the aftermath of Wikileaks' damage," King wrote in a letter to Geithner. "The U.S. government should be making every effort to strangle the viability of Assange's organization."


In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, US senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins write: "We all support transparency, but these criminal leaks were not about open government. WikiLeaks's recklessness compromised our national security and could put the lives of our citizens, soldiers and allies at risk." If you don't find enough falsehoods in the first two sentences to satisfy you, the rest is behind a paywall.

[Peter Lemkin]

WikiLeaks condemns US embargo move

WikiLeaks today condemned calls from the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security to "strangle the viability" of WikiLeaks by placing the publisher and its editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, on a US "enemies list" normally reserved for terrorists and dictators.

Placement on the US "Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons List" would criminalize US companies who deal with WikiLeaks or its editor. "The U.S. government simply cannot continue its ineffective piecemeal approach of responding in the aftermath of Wikileaks' damage," King wrote in a letter to the Secretary of the US Treasury, Geithner. "The U.S. government should be making every effort to strangle the viability of Assange's organization."

'The Homeland Security Committee chair Peter T. King wants to put a Cuban style trade embargo around the truthforced on US citizens at the point of a gun,' said Julian Assange.

'WikiLeaks is a publishing organization. It is time to cut through the bluster. There is no allegation by the US government or any other party, that WikiLeaks has hurt anyone, at any time during its four-year publishing history, as a result of anything it has published. Very few news organizations can say as much.'

'WikiLeaks has "terrorized" politicians from Kenya to Kansas over the last four years. Quite a few have lost office as a result. That doesn't mean we are "terrorists"it means we doing our job. We intend to "terrorize" Peter King, Hillary Clinton, corrupt CEOs and all the rest for many years to come, because that is what the people of the world demand.'

King noted that some U.S. companies had voluntarily cut off ties to Wikileaks, but that a New York publisher had recently agreed to pay Assange for an autobiography. Assange has said the eventual book royalties would help 'keep Wikileaks afloat'.

'By targeting WikiLeaks and the US publisher Knopf for economic censorship, King reveals his abiding hatred for the US constitution. When the founding fathers wrote, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", they did not provide an exception for blustering fools like Peter T. King.'

[Peter Lemkin]

BoingBoing has a quick post up today claiming that "Registering death threats as domain names is the hot new thing in psychopathic anti-Wikileaks action!"

According to vivantleakers.org -- a new site created to track "cyber-bullying domain names of wikileaks associates" -- multiple death-threat domain names have been registered going after Wikileaks director Julian Assange. Killjulianassange.com and julianassangemustdie.com are recently registered examples, although they have no content on them at this time.

Go Daddy, the site which registered both killjulianassange.com and julianassangemustdie.com said there is nothing that can be done about either site while they are contentless. Go Daddy registers a domain name every .8 seconds -- any domain name can be registered and there is no human intervention.

"Unless and until there is content associated with killjulianassange.com there is no way for us to know what that means," said Christine Jones, Go Daddy's General Counsel. "There's no way to judge whether there's going to be something done with that domain name or if it is going to be violating any rule."

In the past week, Go Daddy has received numerous calls regarding the death threat domain names, but the company has no intention of taking action at this time. The one exception to this, Jones said, would be a domain name death threat for the President, "if the secret service contacted us, we would almost certainly take action on those domain names."

Assange is no stranger to death threats of the old fashioned kind either. In an online chat with the Guardian Assange wrote that anyone making threats against his life should be charged with incitement to murder: "The threats against our lives are a matter of public record, however, we are taking the appropriate precautions to the degree that we are able when dealing with a superpower."

Domain name attacks have become increasingly popular in a wide range of scenarios.


To prepare for an allegedly forthcoming WikiLeak which will supposedly reveal troves of highly sensitive information, Bank of America reportedly bought up scores of domain names that are critical of the bank and CEO Brian Moynihan.

[Peter Lemkin]

2011-01-21 Former Swedish judge Sundberg-Weitman speaks out on the handling of the Julian Assange case
Submitted by knowledgeempire on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 22:37


The following summarizes the unfolding of events surrounding the arrest of Julian Assange, as recounted in an article entitled "The European Arrest Order Against Julian Assange," originally published here by Brita Sundberg-Weitman, retired Swedish judge and author in the areas of legal and civil rights. Sundberg-Weitman also expresses concerns about media coverage of the event and about the possible extradition of Julian Assange in this article, which I received via email by a source who also reports that Sundberg-Weitman translated the piece herself. Quotations refer directly to this English translation received.

The article has 3 parts: Background, justification of extradition fears and clarification of related political considerations under Swedish law. Each is summarized here.

Background
On Friday, August 20, 2010, the decision was made by Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand to arrest Julian Assange, in absentia, on grounds of "suspected rape. This decision was made upon a telephone report by a police officer." As we know, the police had interviewed the two women concerned. However, Sundberg-Weitman points out that the arrest decision was made "before the police interviews of the two women concerned were finished."

It was also previously known that "[s]omebody leaked the decision to the Swedish tabloid Expressen, and it was made public all over the world," and that the decision "was overruled within 24 hours by chief prosecutor Eva Finné. She stated that Assange was no longer suspected of rape."

Claes Borgström, a lawyer known for feminist activism, lodged an appeal on behalf of the two women. The appeal was examined by Marianne Ny, chief of a prosecution "development center" specialized in, among other things, sexual offences.

[Ny] decided to overrule Finné's decision and reopen the case of suspected rape. Like Borgström Ny is a feminist. She is known to have said that when a woman alleges she has been a victim of assault by a man, it is a good idea to have the man detained, because it is not until he is arrested that the woman has time to think of her life in peace and realize how she has been treated. According to Ny the detention has a good effect as protection for the woman "even in cases where the perpetrator is prosecuted but not found guilty".

Sundberg-Weitman then notes that despite the belief that an accused man should be detained irrespective of innocence, Ny did not arrest Julian Assange, who was in Sweden at the time. "[Nor] did [Ny] interview him about the allegations under investigation."

When Assange had left Sweden (his application for a residence permit was rejected) Ny decided to arrest him in absentia and applied to the Stockholm District Court to confirm her decision. The District Court granted her application and, after appeal, its decision was confirmed by the Svea Court of Appeal. However, even before the Court of Appeal had had time to examine the appeal, Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant against Assange.

It is also noted that "[t]he Court of Appeal was chaired by its President, who was until recently National Prosecutor General."

The question Sundberg-Weitman raises is that of why Ny did not take the opportunity "to interview Assange whilst he was still in Sweden" and "why she did not accept Assange's proposal to be interrogated in England," which is a legitimate request, in accordance with "rules valid in both Sweden and Britain on Mutual Legal Assistance." She goes on to explain that The Handbook on International Legal Assistance, published by the Swedish National Prosecutor General, provides various means by which to proceed with interrogations in such cases. This detail is highlighted because Ny had claimed that "it would not be compatible with Swedish law to interrogate Assange in England." Sundberg-Weitman notes that this "obviously is not true."

In later interviews Ny answered that in the case of where it turned out after an interrogation of Assange that he should be immediately arrested, that would not be possible unless he was in Sweden. Possibly we see here a reflection of her view that it is a good thing to have a "perpetrator" (!) locked up even in cases where he is subsequently acquitted in a court of law.

Assange's fear of being extradited from Sweden to US
Sundberg-Weitman points out that Assange was opposed to the idea of being surrendered to Sweden because his fear was "that Sweden would in its turn extradite him to US, where he would be likely to be put away in jail or even murdered as a result of the anger Wikileaks has caused in US." She reminds us that "there are prominent persons who have expressed the view that he should be treated as a terrorist and sentenced to death," due to the perception that Assange "violated US law on espionage." She adds that arguments have been raised to the effect that "it would be legally easier for US to have him extradited from UK than from Sweden."

However, Sundberg-Weitman notes that this argument overlooks some important points. She states that Assange "has much more popular support in UK than in Sweden" and concludes that an extradition from the UK to the US would be less probable, on a political level, than an extradition from Sweden to the US.

[H]aving him extradited from Sweden would probably not cause much protest amongst Swedes. All the mass media in Sweden have a rather biased view on the case to the detriment of Assange, and they express great confidence in Sweden's judiciary in the present case.

Sundberg-Weitman points out 2 facts that justify, in her own view, Assange's "fear of being extradited from Sweden to US."

[T]here are extremely strong interests in US who want him delivered because of Wikileaks.
[R]eports from the US embassy in Stockholm published by Wikileaks have revealed that the Swedish Government has gone out of its way to be helpful to US in various controversial matters.


She goes on to ask, in closing: "So why would the US not make use of its influence to put pressure on Sweden in order to have Assange extradited to the US?"

Political considerations under Swedish law
This final section deals with the question of whether it would be illegal, under Swedish law, for "political considerations" to influence the manner in which Assange is treated "by Swedish authorities as to the suspected sexual offences". Questions pertaining to the events involving the arrest and its media coverage are also discussed.

Sundberg-Weitman considers the possibility that perhaps "Marianne Ny should not be blamed for wanting to press the definition of rape in cases of consensual sex," noting that Ny "is, after all, she "heading a development center' specialized in sexual offences." She argues:

To be sure, there can be no doubt that [Ny] has acted contrary to European law as established by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The issuing of a European Arrest Warrant against Assange runs counter to the European principle of proportionality: in interfering with a person's freedom a State authority must limit itself to what is necessary in order to achieve its objective. In the present case Ny has clearly stated that her objective by issuing the European Arrest Warrant is to question Assange, because only after having heard his statements will she able to decide whether or not to prosecute him. Obviously Ny could have had Assange interrogated in England.

Sundberg-Weitman explains that "the Swedish version of the principle of proportionality is more blurred than that developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union."

Thus, the Swedish statutory instrument regulating the issuance of European Arrest Warrants provides (under the headline "Proportionalitet") that a warrant may be issued only in cases where, considering the harm inflicted upon the person concerned, the delay and the costs that may be expected, an Arrest Warrant should be justified with respect to the nature and gravity of the offence "and other circumstances".

Sundberg-Weitman points out that the words and other circumstances "seem to put no limit to what considerations are legal under the Swedish principle of proportionality enshrined in the statutory instrument." This entails, in her opinion, that under Swedish law, it is therefore legal "to let considerations of foreign relations policy influence a prosecutor's decision whether or not to issue a European Arrest Warrant".

The previous point emphasizes not only the broadness of the Swedish principle of proportionality, but also various peculiarities that ensued in events involving both Ny's subsequent actions and media coverage of the situation.

In point of fact the Swedish fundamental law, the Instrument of Government, provides that where an issue of importance for Sweden's relation to another State appears in a public authority, the authority has to inform the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Chapter 10 § 8). The official comment to this provision states that the Minister must have an opportunity to explain to the authority what aspects of foreign policy may be involved. As a corollary of this provision the Handbook on European Arrest Warrant published by the National Prosecutor General provides that in case of doubt the National Prosecutor General's office is to be consulted.

It follows from these provisions, says Sundberg-Weitman, that Ny was required to consult the National Prosecutor General prior to issuing the European Arrest Warrant against Assange, and that the National Prosecutor General, in turn, "must have presented the matter before the Minister of Foreign Affairs." Yet an Expressen interview with National Prosecutor General Anders Perklev indicates otherwise. In the interview, says Sundberg-Weitman, he

gives the impression that Marianne Ny has been acting totally independently in the Assange case: "Every prosecutor dealing with the case makes an independent evaluation. It is not the Prosecution Authority as such that makes a decision, it is the individual prosecutor who decides in his or her own name.

This, according to Sundberg-Weitman , "seems odd".

Another rather peculiar thing is a communication made by Ny when the Westminster City Magistrates' Court in London released Assange on condition of bail and rather severe restrictions. Sweden was given two hours' time to decide whether or not to appeal. When the two hours were almost gone it was reported on the radio that Sweden had not appealed. But then, in the very last moment, it was dramatically noted that Sweden had indeed decided to appeal.

Events following the announcement do not appear consistent with the facts, however, since

[t]he following day Ny communicated on the Prosecutors' home page that it was "the British prosecutor" who had made the decision to appeal. Likewise, a representative of the National Prosecutor General, Nils Rekke, confirmed on TV that the appeal was a "purely internal British" decision. Later on, however, Ny stated that she was "content" with the decision one may guess that the British Prosecutor had protested against being indirectly accused of high-handedness.

Sundberg-Weitman concludes by asking, "Why these half-truths allocating all responsibility to Ny for the procedure in Sweden and to the British for Sweden´s appeal in Britain?" Her answer: "Well, I don't know the answer to that, but it does appear as if something is being hidden under the carpet."

[David Guyatt]

[quote=Peter Lemkin]

Former Swedish judge Sundberg-Weitman seems to me to have her act together

[quote]It follows from these provisions, says Sundberg-Weitman, that Ny was required to consult the National Prosecutor General prior to issuing the European Arrest Warrant against Assange, and that the National Prosecutor General, in turn, "must have presented the matter before the Minister of Foreign Affairs." Yet an Expressen interview with National Prosecutor General Anders Perklev indicates otherwise. In the interview, says Sundberg-Weitman, he gives the impression that Marianne Ny has been acting totally independently in the Assange case: "Every prosecutor dealing with the case makes an independent evaluation. It is not the Prosecution Authority as such that makes a decision, it is the individual prosecutor who decides in his or her own name. This, according to Sundberg-Weitman , "seems odd".[/quote]

(my bolding) This surely is pol-speak - the senior pols dodging responsibility and making sure the poo will land squarely on the head of Ny in case the strategy goes belly-up.

[Peter Lemkin]

[quote=Peter Lemkin]

Former Swedish judge Sundberg-Weitman seems to me to have her act together

It follows from these provisions, says Sundberg-Weitman, that Ny was required to consult the National Prosecutor General prior to issuing the European Arrest Warrant against Assange, and that the National Prosecutor General, in turn, "must have presented the matter before the Minister of Foreign Affairs." Yet an Expressen interview with National Prosecutor General Anders Perklev indicates otherwise. In the interview, says Sundberg-Weitman, he gives the impression that Marianne Ny has been acting totally independently in the Assange case: "Every prosecutor dealing with the case makes an independent evaluation. It is not the Prosecution Authority as such that makes a decision, it is the individual prosecutor who decides in his or her own name. This, according to Sundberg-Weitman , "seems odd".

(my bolding) This surely is pol-speak - the senior pols dodging responsibility and making sure the poo will land squarely on the head of Ny in case the strategy goes belly-up.

I don't disagree, but if you see my bolding [above] it was NOT NY, but some entity in the UK who made the last minute appeal.....and Ny seemed to just let it 'go with the flow'...or was let in on it happening, before the fact....this is Deep Political shit.....by the Caterpillar-load!:loo: :fullofit:

i.e. Ny is either up to her chin in Deep Political stuff...or being controlled by others who are! - both in Sverige and in the U.K.~!

[David Guyatt]

Yes, I saw that Pete. I don't doubt for a second perfidy on the part of Albion.

But I was rather more focusing on the Swedish end of the case. The way I read the bolded segment I quoted, was that the National Prosecutor General, Anders Perklev was being disingenuous, and that Sundberg-Weitman was probably suggesting that this was the case by her comment that his statement "seems odd" - plus her earlier comment that "he gives the impression that..."

[Peter Lemkin]

Yes, I saw that Pete. I don't doubt for a second perfidy on the part of Albion.

But I was rather more focusing on the Swedish end of the case. The way I read the bolded segment I quoted, was that the National Prosecutor General, Anders Perklev was being disingenuous, and that Sundberg-Weitman was probably suggesting that this was the case by her comment that his statement "seems odd" - plus her earlier comment that "he gives the impression that..."

Well, if correct, [and have NO reason to doubt that they are!] judge Sundberg-Weitman is stating very politely that more than 'oddly' it all happened extra-legally to illegally. That said, and likely so, my guess is that politics will trump the law here and J.A.'s ass will likely still get sent to the USA from one country or another - most likely from Sweden....and only afterward will we find out that it was all quite illegal. If making a film about 7/7 can wind one in prison....what will Wikileaks get one....? It is now almost like the Nazi Courts...where you simply ARE guilty if your ARE indited with a position not in accord with the Reich, ipso facto. We can only hope there are still a few shreds of Justice left in the U.K. and/or Sweden....but I'm not holding my breath for either. As for Justice in the USA......it leaves me gasping and breathless....and seems no longer to exist in 'National Security' cases.

[Peter Lemkin]

The controversial London-based law firm which sent tens of thousands of letters demanding payment from people it accused of illegal filesharing has dramatically quit its copyright litigations, claiming death threats are causing "immense hassle" to the lead solicitor's family.

Andrew Crossley, the founder and lead solicitor at ACS:Law, announced in a statement to the patents county court in London yesterday afternoon that his firm would no longer be chasing alleged copyright infringers.

"I have ceased my work. I have been subject to criminal attack. My emails have been hacked. I have had death threats and bomb threats," Crossley said in the statement, read to the court by barrister Tim Ludbrook, who is acting on behalf of copyright licensee MediaCAT. "It has caused immense hassle to me and my family."

ACS:Law is at the centre of a long-running row over its method of so-called "speculative invoicing", where thousands of generic letters are sent to internet users it suspects of illicit filesharing. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is currently investigating its practices as hundreds of the accused claim to have been wrongly identified.

In September last year, the personal details of thousands of Britons were leaked online after a crippling attack on ACS:Law's website. The details, including telephone numbers and addresses, surfaced online during a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on the company's servers. The information commissioner is presently investigating the data breach and could levy a £500,000 fine if ACS:Law is found to held the information insecurely.

Crossley's revelation came at the close of yesterday's patents county court hearing into 27 people accused of illegally sharing copyrighted pornography, of which MediaCAT is the exclusive licensee.

Of the thousands of letters that ACS:Law has sent out to alleged infringers, these 27 cases are the only ones to be heard before a judge. ACS:Law attempted to drop the cases just days before its first court hearing earlier this month, but was told that it first needed the court's permission.

Judge Birss QC called the situation "absolutely extraordinary", and said: "I am not happy about this. I get the distinct impression that at every twist and turn there is a desire to avoid judicial scrutiny.

"It seems to be first instinct to avoid judicial scrutiny. There's been thousands of letters, and only 27 cases have had to be dropped I doubt that. Copyright infringement is a serious matter, but this is just mindboggling."

The protracted hearings have been further complicated by the recent emergence of a separate law firm issuing similar payment demands on behalf of MediaCAT, known as GCB Ltd. ACS:Law claims to have no connection with GCB Ltd, other than two of its former employees founded the newly established law firm.

Judge Birss said he had considered banning ACS:Law's client, MediaCAT, from sending any more payment demands until its claims and claimants are clarified. "It would be an extraordinary order to make," he added. "But these are extraordinary circumstances".

The patents court is expected to rule later this week on whether ACS:Law should be allowed to discontinue the cases, and whether the copyright owner understood to be Sheptonhurst, the owner of the UK's biggest sex shop chain, Private has to join proceedings as a claimant.

[Magda Hassan]

WikiLeaks broke no rules, Visa study finds

But credit card company continues to block donations
Iain Thomson in San Francisco
V3.co.uk, 27 Jan 2011
A study into WikiLeaks by a third-party consultant commissioned by credit card company Visa has cleared the site of any illegal activity.
Visa blocked donations to WikiLeaks last month, saying that it would have to examine the legality of the site.



Visa hired Norway-based financial services company Teller AS to investigate WikiLeaks and its Icelandic fundraising body the Sunshine Press.
According to documents obtained by Associated Press, Teller AS found no instance of WikiLeaks breaking the law.
"Our lawyers have now completed their work and have found no indications that Sunshine Press acted in contravention of Visa's rules or Icelandic legislation, " Teller AS chief executive Peter Wiren said late last month.
Visa spokeswoman Amanda Kamin said that the company will carry on blocking payments to WikiLeaks until an internal Visa investigation is concluded, but declined to name a date for any report.

Visa and Mastercard were attacked by members of the Anonymous hacking organisation following their decision to block payments to the site, as was PayPal when it froze WikiLeaks' account.
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2274443/wiki...sa-iceland