Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive

[David Guyatt]

Here's The Secret Document That Banks And Other Big Organizations Are Using To Prepare For Wikileaks

Joe Weisenthal | Feb. 9, 2011, 4:16 PM | 45,956 | [/url]


Image: http://wikileaks.ch/

It sounds as though the document that Wikileaks will release on Bank of America (most likely) won't be that big of a deal. But bit corporations are obviously nervous.
[url=http://wikileaks.ch/]Wikileaks has uncovered a presentation from a firm called Palantir, which at the behest of the government, has been helping companies prepare for the Wikilleaks threat.
[B]CLICK HERE TO SEE THE PRESENTATION >[/B]

http://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-...2011-2#-19

If true then Assange has sold out, because BoA don't set up a war room of the magnitude they've done the last few months for something that isn't earth moving...

[Bernice Moore]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Rove-...0-389.html

oped news states that rove and wallenburg after assange

[Magda Hassan]

Firm targeting WikiLeaks cuts ties with HBGary - apologizes to reporter

by Steve Ragan - Feb 11 2011, 01:55


<p> Dr. Alex Karp, the Co-Founder and CEO of Palantir Technologies, one of three data intelligence firms who worked to develop a systematic plan of attack against WikiLeaks and their supporters, has severed all ties with HBGary Federal and issued an apology to reporter Glenn Greenwald. </p><p></p><div class="article_image_center"><img src="http://www.thetechherald.com/media/images/201106/WikiLeaks_top_2.jpg" alt="Firm targeting WikiLeaks cuts ties with HBGary - apologizes to reporter. (IMG: WikiLeaks)" height="400" width="600"><p>Firm targeting WikiLeaks cuts ties with HBGary - apologizes to reporter. (IMG: WikiLeaks)</p></div><p></p> <p>The move comes just twenty-four hours after The Tech Herald reported on the plans, thanks to a tip from Crowdleaks.org </p> <p></p> <p>After the tip from <a href="http://crowdleaks.org/" target="_blank">Crowdleaks.org</a>, The Tech Herald learned that <a href="http://www.palantir.com/" target="_blank">Palantir Technologies</a>, <a href="http://hbgary.com/" target="_blank">HBGary Federal</a>, and <a href="http://www.bericotechnologies.com/" target="_blank">Berico Technologies</a>, worked together with law firm Hunton and Williams to develop a proposal for Bank of America in order to deal with the "WikiLeaks Threat."</p> <p><a href="http://www.hunton.com/firm/firm.aspx?id=5114" target="_blank">Hunton and Williams</a> were recommended to Bank of America's general counsel by the Department of Justice, according to the email chain viewed by The Tech Herald. The law firm was using the meeting to pitch Bank of America on retaining them for an internal investigation surrounding WikiLeaks.</p> <p>"They basically want to sue them to put an injunction on releasing any data," an email between the three data intelligence firms said. "They want to present to the bank a team capable of doing a comprehensive investigation into the data leak."</p> <p>Hunton and Williams would act as outside counsel on retainer, while Palantir would take care of network and insider threat investigations. For their part, Berico Technologies and HBGary Federal would analyze WikiLeaks.</p> <p>Some of the things mentioned as potential proactive tactics against WikiLeaks include feeding the fuel between the feuding groups, disinformation, creating messages around actions to sabotage or discredit the opposing organization, and submitting fake documents to WikiLeaks and then calling out the error.</p> <p>"Create concern over the security of the infrastructure. Create exposure stories. If the process is believed to not be secure they are done. Cyber attacks against the infrastructure to get data on document submitters. This would kill the project. Since the servers are now in Sweden and France putting a team together to get access is more straightforward," the proposal said.</p> <p>Moreover, reporter Glenn Greenwald, who writes for Salon.com, was singled out in the proposal as a person offering a level of support to WikiLeaks that needed to be disrupted. This disruption would include making Greenwald, and others in similar situations, choose between professional preservation and cause. </p> <p>Our original coverage on this topic can be viewed <a href="http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201106/6798/Data-intelligence-firms-proposed-a-systematic-attack-against-WikiLeaks" target="_blank">here</a>.</p> <p>On Thursday evening, Dr. Alex Karp sent The Tech Herald a statement on the events and information presented in the story. </p> <p>"As the Co-Founder and CEO of Palantir Technologies, I have directed the company to sever any and all contacts with HB Gary," the statement starts.</p> <p>Dr. Karp explains that Palantir Technologies provides a software analytic platform for the analysis of data. They do not provide "nor do we have any plans to develop" offensive cyber capabilities. </p> <p>In addition, the statement says that Palantir does not build software that is designed to allow private sector entities to obtain non-public information, engage in so-called cyber attacks, or take other offensive measures.</p> <p>"I have made clear in no uncertain terms that Palantir Technologies will not be involved in such activities. Moreover, we as a company, and I as an individual, always have been deeply involved in supporting progressive values and causes. We plan to continue these efforts in the future," Dr. Karp added.</p> <p>"The right to free speech and the right to privacy are critical to a flourishing democracy. From its inception, Palantir Technologies has supported these ideals and demonstrated a commitment to building software that protects privacy and civil liberties. Furthermore, personally and on behalf of the entire company, I want to publicly apologize to progressive organizations in general, and Mr. Greenwald in particular, for any involvement that we may have had in these matters."</p> <p>Palantir Technologies' statement comes at a time when HBGary has refused to talk about the WikiLeaks proposal, or any other topic for that matter, related to the security incident caused by Anonymous after HBGary Federal's Aaron Barr went to the press claiming he had infiltrated the loosely associative group.</p> <p>The only statement from the company on the incident appeared on their website before it was fully restored. </p> <p>"HBGary, Inc and HBGary Federal, a separate but related company, have been the victims of an intentional criminal cyberattack. We are taking this crime seriously and are working with federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities and redirecting internal resources to investigate and respond appropriately," the statement said at the time.</p> <p>"To the extent that any client information may have been affected by this event, we will provide the affected clients with complete and accurate information as soon as it becomes available. Meanwhile, please be aware that any information currently in the public domain is not reliable because the perpetrators of this offense, or people working closely with them, have intentionally falsified certain data."</p> <p>It is unlikely that Anonymous would forge thousands and thousands of emails or attachments. Yet, the complete severance of ties by Palantir Technologies, and the public apology to Greenwald, leaves little room for doubt that the information seen by The Tech Herald, Crowdleaks.org, and many others is legitimate.</p>
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php...o-reporter

[Peter Lemkin]

Firm targeting WikiLeaks cuts ties with HBGary - apologizes to reporter

by Steve Ragan - Feb 11 2011, 01:55


<p> Dr. Alex Karp, the Co-Founder and CEO of Palantir Technologies, one of three data intelligence firms who worked to develop a systematic plan of attack against WikiLeaks and their supporters, has severed all ties with HBGary Federal and issued an apology to reporter Glenn Greenwald. </p><p></p><div class="article_image_center"><img src="http://www.thetechherald.com/media/images/201106/WikiLeaks_top_2.jpg" alt="Firm targeting WikiLeaks cuts ties with HBGary - apologizes to reporter. (IMG: WikiLeaks)" height="400" width="600"><p>Firm targeting WikiLeaks cuts ties with HBGary - apologizes to reporter. (IMG: WikiLeaks)</p></div><p></p> <p>The move comes just twenty-four hours after The Tech Herald reported on the plans, thanks to a tip from Crowdleaks.org </p> <p></p> <p>After the tip from <a href="http://crowdleaks.org/" target="_blank">Crowdleaks.org</a>, The Tech Herald learned that <a href="http://www.palantir.com/" target="_blank">Palantir Technologies</a>, <a href="http://hbgary.com/" target="_blank">HBGary Federal</a>, and <a href="http://www.bericotechnologies.com/" target="_blank">Berico Technologies</a>, worked together with law firm Hunton and Williams to develop a proposal for Bank of America in order to deal with the "WikiLeaks Threat."</p> <p><a href="http://www.hunton.com/firm/firm.aspx?id=5114" target="_blank">Hunton and Williams</a> were recommended to Bank of America's general counsel by the Department of Justice, according to the email chain viewed by The Tech Herald. The law firm was using the meeting to pitch Bank of America on retaining them for an internal investigation surrounding WikiLeaks.</p> <p>"They basically want to sue them to put an injunction on releasing any data," an email between the three data intelligence firms said. "They want to present to the bank a team capable of doing a comprehensive investigation into the data leak."</p> <p>Hunton and Williams would act as outside counsel on retainer, while Palantir would take care of network and insider threat investigations. For their part, Berico Technologies and HBGary Federal would analyze WikiLeaks.</p> <p>Some of the things mentioned as potential proactive tactics against WikiLeaks include feeding the fuel between the feuding groups, disinformation, creating messages around actions to sabotage or discredit the opposing organization, and submitting fake documents to WikiLeaks and then calling out the error.</p> <p>"Create concern over the security of the infrastructure. Create exposure stories. If the process is believed to not be secure they are done. Cyber attacks against the infrastructure to get data on document submitters. This would kill the project. Since the servers are now in Sweden and France putting a team together to get access is more straightforward," the proposal said.</p> <p>Moreover, reporter Glenn Greenwald, who writes for Salon.com, was singled out in the proposal as a person offering a level of support to WikiLeaks that needed to be disrupted. This disruption would include making Greenwald, and others in similar situations, choose between professional preservation and cause. </p> <p>Our original coverage on this topic can be viewed <a href="http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201106/6798/Data-intelligence-firms-proposed-a-systematic-attack-against-WikiLeaks" target="_blank">here</a>.</p> <p>On Thursday evening, Dr. Alex Karp sent The Tech Herald a statement on the events and information presented in the story. </p> <p>"As the Co-Founder and CEO of Palantir Technologies, I have directed the company to sever any and all contacts with HB Gary," the statement starts.</p> <p>Dr. Karp explains that Palantir Technologies provides a software analytic platform for the analysis of data. They do not provide "nor do we have any plans to develop" offensive cyber capabilities. </p> <p>In addition, the statement says that Palantir does not build software that is designed to allow private sector entities to obtain non-public information, engage in so-called cyber attacks, or take other offensive measures.</p> <p>"I have made clear in no uncertain terms that Palantir Technologies will not be involved in such activities. Moreover, we as a company, and I as an individual, always have been deeply involved in supporting progressive values and causes. We plan to continue these efforts in the future," Dr. Karp added.</p> <p>"The right to free speech and the right to privacy are critical to a flourishing democracy. From its inception, Palantir Technologies has supported these ideals and demonstrated a commitment to building software that protects privacy and civil liberties. Furthermore, personally and on behalf of the entire company, I want to publicly apologize to progressive organizations in general, and Mr. Greenwald in particular, for any involvement that we may have had in these matters."</p> <p>Palantir Technologies' statement comes at a time when HBGary has refused to talk about the WikiLeaks proposal, or any other topic for that matter, related to the security incident caused by Anonymous after HBGary Federal's Aaron Barr went to the press claiming he had infiltrated the loosely associative group.</p> <p>The only statement from the company on the incident appeared on their website before it was fully restored. </p> <p>"HBGary, Inc and HBGary Federal, a separate but related company, have been the victims of an intentional criminal cyberattack. We are taking this crime seriously and are working with federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities and redirecting internal resources to investigate and respond appropriately," the statement said at the time.</p> <p>"To the extent that any client information may have been affected by this event, we will provide the affected clients with complete and accurate information as soon as it becomes available. Meanwhile, please be aware that any information currently in the public domain is not reliable because the perpetrators of this offense, or people working closely with them, have intentionally falsified certain data."</p> <p>It is unlikely that Anonymous would forge thousands and thousands of emails or attachments. Yet, the complete severance of ties by Palantir Technologies, and the public apology to Greenwald, leaves little room for doubt that the information seen by The Tech Herald, Crowdleaks.org, and many others is legitimate.</p>
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php...o-reporter

crocodile tears - too little and much too late....the damage is done..and was knowingly done.....and well paid for!.....are they returning the money....?

[Peter Lemkin]

Release date
February 24, 2010

Summary

Cryptome.org is a venerable New York-based anti-secrecy site that has been publishing since 1999. On Feb 24, 2010, the site was forcibly taken down following its publication of Microsoft's "Global Criminal Compliance Handbook", a confidential 22 page booklet designed for police and intelligence services. The guide provides a "menu" of information Microsoft collects on the users of its online services. Microsoft lawyers threatened Cryptome and its "printer", internet hosting provider giant Network Solutions, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA was designed to protect the legitimate rights of publishers, not to conceal scandalous internal documents that were never intended for sale. Although the action is a clear abuse of the DMCA, Network Solutions, a company with extensive connections to U.S. intelligence contractors, gagged the site in its entirety. Such actions are, in the opinions of those supporting transparency, a serious problem in the United States, where, although in theory the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, in practice, censorship has been privatized via abuse of the judicial system and corporate patronage networks.

MS - your spook and MIC friendly software provider and information collector!

[Keith Millea]

Glenn Greenwald has something to say about all this.


Friday, Feb 11, 2011 05:12 ET Glenn Greenwald
The leaked campaign to attack WikiLeaks and its supporters

By Glenn Greenwald


Aaron Barr, a top executive at computer security firm HB Gary.

There's been a very strange episode being written about the past couple of days involving numerous parties, including me, that I now want to comment on. The story, first reported by The Tech Herald, has been been written about in numerous places (see Marcy Wheeler, Forbes, The Huffington Post, BoingBoing, Matt Yglesias, Reason, Tech Dirt, and others), so I'll provide just the summary.

Last week, Aaron Barr, a top executive at computer security firm HB Gary, boasted to the Financial Times that his firm had infiltrated and begun to expose Anonymous, the group of pro-WikiLeaks hackers that had launched cyber attacks on companies terminating services to the whistleblowing site (such as Paypal, MasterCard, Visa, Amazon and others). In retaliation, Anonymous hacked into the email accounts of HB Gary, published 50,000 of their emails online, and also hacked Barr's Twitter and other online accounts.


Among the emails that were published was a report prepared by HB Gary -- in conjunction with several other top online security firms, including Palantir Technologies -- on how to destroy WikiLeaks. The emails indicated the report was part of a proposal to be submitted to Bank of America through its outside law firm, Hunton & Williams. News reports have indicated that WikiLeaks is planning to publish highly incriminating documents showing possible corruption and fraud at that bank, and The New York Times detailed last month how seriously top bank officials are taking that threat. The NYT article described that the bank's "counterespionage work" against WikiLeaks entailed constant briefings for top executives on the whistle-blower site, along with the hiring of "several top law firms" and Booz Allen (the long-time firm of former Bush DNI Adm. Michael McConnell and numerous other top intelligence and defense officials). The report prepared by these firms was designed to be part of the Bank of America's highly funded anti-WikiLeaks campaign.

The leaked report suggested numerous ways to destroy WikiLeaks, some of them likely illegal -- including planting fake documents with the group and then attacking them when published; "creat[ing] concern over the security" of the site; "cyber attacks against the infrastructure to get data on document submitters"; and a "media campaign to push the radical and reckless nature of wikileaks activities." Many of those proposals were also featured prongs of a secret 2008 Pentagon plan to destroy WikiLeaks.


One section of the leaked report focused on attacking WikiLeaks' supporters and it featured a discussion of me. A graph purporting to be an "organizational chart" identified several other targets, including former New York Times reporter Jennifer 8 Lee, Guardian reporter James Ball, and Manning supporter David House. The report claimed I was "critical" to WikiLeaks' public support after its website was removed by Amazon and that "it is this level of support that needs to be disrupted"; absurdly speculated that "without the support of people like Glenn, WikiLeaks would fold"; and darkly suggested that "these are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause." As The Tech Herald noted, "earlier drafts of the proposal and an email from Aaron Barr used the word 'attacked' over 'disrupted' when discussing the level of support."

In the wake of the ensuing controversy caused by publication of these documents, the co-founder and CEO of Palantir Tech, Alex Karp, has now issued a statement stating that he "directed the company to sever any and all contacts with HB Gary."

The full statement -- which can be read here -- also includes this sentence: "personally and on behalf of the entire company, I want to publicly apologize to progressive organizations in general, and Mr. Greenwald in particular, for any involvement that we may have had in these matters." Palantir has also contacted me by email to arrange for Dr. Karp to call me to personally convey the apology. My primary interest is in knowing whether Bank of America retained these firms to execute this proposal and if any steps were taken to do so; if Karp's apology is genuine, that information ought to be forthcoming (as I was finishing writing this, Karp called me, seemed sincere enough in his apology, vowed that any Palantir employees involved in this would dealt with the way they dealt with HB Gary, and commendably committed to telling me by the end of the week whether Bank of America or Hunton & Williams actually retained these firms to carry out this proposal).
* * * * *
My initial reaction to all of this was to scoff at its absurdity. Not being familiar with the private-sector world of internet security, I hadn't heard of these firms before and, based on the quality of the proposal, assumed they were just some self-promoting, fly-by-night entities of little significance. Moreover, for the reasons I detailed in my interview with The Tech Herald -- and for reasons Digby elaborated on here -- the very notion that I could be forced to choose "professional preservation over cause" is ludicrous on multiple levels. Obviously, I wouldn't have spent the last year vehemently supporting WikiLeaks -- to say nothing of aggressively criticizing virtually every large media outlet and many of their leading stars, as well as the most beloved political leaders of both parties -- if I were willing to choose "career preservation over cause."

But after learning a lot more over the last couple of days, I now take this more seriously -- not in terms of my involvement but the broader implications this story highlights. For one thing, it turns out that the firms involved here are large, legitimate and serious, and do substantial amounts of work for both the U.S.

Government and the nation's largest private corporations (as but one example, see this email from a Stanford computer science student about Palantir). Moreover, these kinds of smear campaigns are far from unusual; in other leaked HB Gary emails, ThinkProgress discovered that similar proposals were prepared for the Chamber of Commerce to attack progressive groups and other activists (including ThinkProgress). And perhaps most disturbing of all, Hunton & Williams was recommended to Bank of America's General Counsel by the Justice Department -- meaning the U.S. Government is aiding Bank of America in its defense against/attacks on WikiLeaks.

That's why this should be taken seriously, despite how ignorant, trite and laughably shallow is the specific leaked anti-WikiLeaks proposal. As creepy and odious as this is, there's nothing unusual about these kinds of smear campaigns. The only unusual aspect here is that we happened to learn about it this time because of Anonymous' hacking. That a similar scheme was quickly discovered by ThinkProgress demonstrates how common this behavior is. The very idea of trying to threaten the careers of journalists and activists to punish and deter their advocacy is self-evidently pernicious; that it's being so freely and casually proposed to groups as powerful as the Bank of America, the Chamber of Commerce, and the DOJ-recommended Hunton & Williams demonstrates how common this is. These highly experienced firms included such proposals because they assumed those deep-pocket organizations would approve and it would make their hiring more likely.

But the real issue highlighted by this episode is just how lawless and unrestrained is the unified axis of government and corporate power. I've written many times about this issue -- the full-scale merger between public and private spheres -- because it's easily one of the most critical yet under-discussed political topics. Especially (though by no means only) in the worlds of the Surveillance and National Security State, the powers of the state have become largely privatized. There is very little separation between government power and corporate power. Those who wield the latter intrinsically wield the former. The revolving door between the highest levels of government and corporate offices rotates so fast and continuously that it has basically flown off its track and no longer provides even the minimal barrier it once did. It's not merely that corporate power is unrestrained; it's worse than that: corporations actively exploit the power of the state to further entrench and enhance their power.

That's what this anti-WikiLeaks campaign is generally: it's a concerted, unified effort between government and the most powerful entities in the private sector (Bank of America is the largest bank in the nation). The firms the Bank has hired (such as Booz Allen) are suffused with the highest level former defense and intelligence officials, while these other outside firms (including Hunton & Williams and Palantir) are extremely well-connected to the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government's obsession with destroying WikiLeaks has been well-documented. And because the U.S. Government is free to break the law without any constraints, oversight or accountability, so, too, are its "private partners" able to act lawlessly. That was the lesson of the Congressional vesting of full retroactive immunity on lawbreaking telecoms, of the refusal to prosecute any of the important Wall Street criminals who caused the 2008 financial crisis, and of the instinctive efforts of the political class to protect defrauding mortgage banks.

The exemption from the rule of law has been fully transferred from the highest level political elites to their counterparts in the private sector. "Law" is something used to restrain ordinary Americans and especially those who oppose this consortium of government and corporate power, but it manifestly does not apply to restrain these elites. Just consider one amazing example illustrating how this works.
After Anonymous imposed some very minimal cyber disruptions on Paypal, Master Card and Amazon, the DOJ flamboyantly vowed to arrest the culprits, and several individuals were just arrested as part of those attacks. But weeks earlier, a far more damaging and serious cyber-attack was launched at WikiLeaks, knocking them offline. Those attacks were sophisticated and dangerous. Whoever did that was quite likely part of either a government agency or a large private entity acting at its behest. Yet the DOJ has never announced any investigation into those attacks or vowed to apprehend the culprits, and it's impossible to imagine that ever happening.

Why? Because crimes carried out that serve the Government's agenda and target its opponents are permitted and even encouraged; cyber-attacks are "crimes" only when undertaken by those whom the Government dislikes, but are perfectly permissible when the Government itself or those with a sympathetic agenda unleash them. Whoever launched those cyber attacks at WikiLeaks (whether government or private actors) had no more legal right to do so than Anonymous, but only the latter will be prosecuted.

That's the same dynamic that causes the Obama administration to be obsessed with prosecuting WikiLeaks but not The New York Times or Bob Woodward, even though the latter have published far more sensitive government secrets; WikiLeaks is adverse to the government while the NYT and Woodward aren't, and thus "law" applies to punish only the former. The same mindset drives the Government to shield high-level political officials who commit the most serious crimes, while relentlessly pursuing whistle-blowers who expose their wrongdoing. Those with proximity to government power and who serve and/or control it are free from the constraints of law; those who threaten or subvert it have the full weight of law come crashing down upon them.
* * * * *
What is set forth in these proposals for Bank of America quite possibly constitutes serious crimes. Manufacturing and submitting fake documents with the intent they be published likely constitutes forgery and fraud. Threatening the careers of journalists and activists in order to force them to be silent is possibly extortion and, depending on the specific means to be used, constitutes other crimes as well.

Attacking WikiLeaks' computer infrastructure in an attempt to compromise their sources undoubtedly violates numerous cyber laws.

Yet these firms had no compunction about proposing such measures to Bank of America and Hunton & Williams, and even writing them down. What accounts for that brazen disregard of risk? In this world, law does not exist as a constraint. It's impossible to imagine the DOJ ever, ever prosecuting a huge entity like Bank of America for doing something like waging war against WikiLeaks and its supporters. These massive corporations and the firms that serve them have no fear of law or government because they control each. That's why they so freely plot to target those who oppose them in any way. They not only have massive resources to devote to such attacks, but the ability to act without limits. John Cole put it this way:

One thing that even the dim bulbs in the media should understand by now is that there is in fact a class war going on, and it is the rich and powerful who are waging it. Anyone who does anything that empowers the little people or that threatens the wealth and power of the plutocracy must be destroyed. There is a reason for these clowns going after Think Progress and unions, just like there is a reason they are targeting Wikileaks and Glenn Greenwald, Planned Parenthood, and Acorn. . . .
You have to understand the mindset- they are playing for keeps. The vast majority of the wealth isn't enough. They want it all. Anything that gets in their way must be destroyed. . . . And they are well financed, have a strong infrastructure, a sympathetic media, and entire organizations dedicated to running cover for them . . . .
I don't even know why we bother to hold elections any more, to be honest, the game is so rigged. We're a banana republic, and it is just a matter of time before we descend into necklacing and other tribal bullshit.

There are supposed to be institutions which limit what can be done in pursuit of those private-sector goals. They're called "government" and "law." But those institutions are so annexed by the most powerful private-sector elites, and so corrupted by the public officials who run them, that nobody -- least of all those elites -- has any expectation that they will limit anything. To the contrary, the full force of government and law will be unleashed against anyone who undermines Bank of America and Wall Street executives and telecoms and government and the like (such as WikiLeaks and supporters), and will be further exploited to advance the interests of those entities, but will never be used to constrain what they do. These firms vying for Bank of America's anti-WikiLeaks business know all of this full well, which is why they concluded that proposing such pernicious and possibly illegal attacks would be deemed not just acceptable but commendable.

http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/inde.../campaigns

[Peter Lemkin]

2011-02-12 Extradition hearing: Day three.
Submitted by Peter Kemp on Sat, 02/12/2011 - 04:30


The following is a reconstruction of the Julian Assange extradition proceedings on 11th February 2011 based primarily on the tweets of @federicacoccoFederica Cocco and in much smaller part from the tweets of @channel4news. WL Central acknowledges those sources. The tweets have been preserved as much as possible and combined but are re-written in parts for clarity and legal terminology has been inserted where appropriate. Clarifying additions are generally in italics and may be assumptions within the legal context.

SC Robertson's Submissions.
Robertson QC opens submissions with an account of the Prime Minister of Sweden's attack on Julian Assange, who referred to him as an "enemy of the people"

"This will influence a fair trial" says Robertson and goes on to mention further comments by the Prime Minister that Assange and his lawyers are "sexist and condescending to Sweden".

The Chancellor added to the Prime Minister's remarks which Robertson says is an intolerable development, as well as unprecedented for a government minister to comment in that way.

There is evidence of a 'toxic nature' of antagonism in those statements, all the more extraordinary as the Swedish Prime Minister said in January that he'd be wrong to comment. This is a complete contempt of the principle of presumption of innocence and Robertson requests an adjournment

Montgomery argues against adjournment. Even if Robertson was right (that the trial wouldn't be fair) the defence has spoken to media as well, the PM simply reacted to statements made by the defence. Robertson replies "That's a very cynical comment."

Robertson says "We're talking about the head of government, descending into the public arena and making statements in regard to the evidence."

Clare Montgomery QC opposes an adjournment, saying: "Those who seek to fan the flames of a media firestorm cannot complain when they are burnt."

Robertson replies that the "Prime Minister of Sweden is painting Assange with a very venomous picture." The presumption of innocence is essential and the PM's statements will prejudice Assange at trial. The fact he made the statement now means the defence need more time to bring fresh evidence.

The Judge says that he will come back to the nature of that application in a moment and notes that the hearing meant to last two days has already been extended.

The Judge says that he's been given the PM's statement by Assange's legal team and notes that the application is opposed by Montgomery. In a case of this type, it is likely there will be further developments but there has to be an element of finality. Robertson replies that "finality is less important than justice."

The Judge notes that he's very aware that any decision he makes in these proceedings will be the subject of an appeal. Even though Robertson has made a very strong application for an adjournment he proposes to refuse it, saying that The High Court can make a decision on appeal on this point but he wants the submissions finalised today.

Robertson presses the point and requests at least "a proper and idiomatic translation of the PM's statements" The Judge refuses an adjournment, saying there is "not enough time."

Robertson continues his submissions saying that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the standard of proof is "beyond any reasonable doubt."

Robertson says there is a real risk of an unfair trial and questions the credit credibility applicable, if any, to Ms Ny's statement. The proper and fair way of dealing with this situation is to get Ms Ny in the witness box. "It is not appropriate to smuggle in a witness statement under the pretext that it's simply to supply useful information." There are cases the defence has cited where prosecutors have come to testify. If statements are to be given in an evidential way, then she should come and testify…that is a fundamental principle of criminal law that proceedings become unfair if one side is not allowed to challenge statements of evidential weight.

Robertson continues that it's not fair for one side to be able to stay out of the witness box. If she doesn't come, his submission is that her written statement should be disregarded.

Robertson goes on to address the issue of unfair trials, that some people have said that the defence shouldn't worry about unfair trials since Sweden's decisions can be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. The problem with that is there are 139,000 cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights and on appeal there, it would take years before Strasbourg heard the matter and a decision was made. While that Court has a rule on urgent procedures it's limited to cases in which the suspect risks torture.

Robertson reiterates, there is no evidence from prosecution other than the warrant, which was issued by the wrong entity, the issuing authority for the EAW should not be the public prosecutor, but the Swedish prosecution authority, and this is especially so because this is not a conviction warrant.

Robertson asserts: "Ny is absolutely, totally wrong to have issued the EAW. They may have thought the point was strictly technical, but it's very significant" and points out that this was not an issue that was before the "Svea Court of Appeal which" Sven-Erik "Alhem confirmed in his evidence."

There is also the question of where the dividing line is between prosecuting and questioning relevant to the issuance of an EAW.

Robertson addresses proportionality asking "Is a European Arrest Warrant valid, under the principle of proportionality, for mere questioning as opposed to prosecution?"

"Was this warrant issued to commence a prosecution?" The answer is "No, it was issued for a preliminary investigation."

"It has been said that Assange would be defined as suspect only after the preliminary investigation had ended."

"This is the law, if we're being cosmopolitan we need to look at other systems. This is the system in Sweden."

"You can't consider prosecution until preliminary investigations are closed. Ms Ny wrongly described Assange as a suspect."

Roberston says that Assange was not formally notified of the charges against him and was not given the opportunity to organise witnesses and their evidence supporting him in his defence. It follows that no prosecution commenced and therefore the warrant is invalid.

The EAW issued was disproportionate in that Mutual Legal Assistance provisions should have been applied first. The prosecution said DNA test was necessary and Robertson questions why was that not necessary in August? In any event Mutual Legal Assistance allows for DNA tests.

On the subject of DNA Robertson says at some stage in his submissions that questions over whether Julian Assange would have to attend in person to give DNA sample "is a bum point."

On the issue of questioning/interrogation, Robertson says that Assange volunteered to be questioned but the Prosecutor refused to interview him. It wasn't until the 22nd that she asked Assange to attend an interview for the 28th. His luggage was stolen on the 27th, when he left to attend that prearranged meeting.

Robertson says that Assange offered to return but Ms Ny said it would have been too late. The Deputy prosecutor told Hurtig Assange's defence lawyer in Sweden that Assange could come in and would be allowed to leave. "This evidence is extraordinary."

Robertson's point on proportionality is that there has been no "sensible explanation" as to why Mutual Legal Assistance or interviews via Skype were refused.

As for the dual criminality, (a crime must be equivalent in both jurisdictions) the onus of proof is on the prosecution and the EAW warrant system requires for these to be disclosed.

Going into finer detail on applying a dual criminality claim, Robertson submits that two elements are crucial in cases of sexual assault but the crucial one is "Did the victim consent?"

Robertson's point is that there is nothing in the warrant's description saying the complainant(s) did not consent.

At about this time in his submissions Robertson says it is "crystal clear' that non-consent element of rape is not present in case of complainant A."

Robertson then gives a detailed description of the sexual act(s) including the positions of the complainant and Assange.

On the issue of the Swedish prosecutors method of complainant interview, Robertson says that Miss A was interrogated by phone and remarks "Isn't that interesting?"

At about this point in proceedings Robertson also says: "What is plain from interrogation of woman A, by phone, is that when she asked Assange to let go he did and put on a condom."

"She was squeezing her legs together, he asked her why, she said I want you to wear a condom'".

The Judge interjects saying that Robertson has already made the point, get on with it.

Robertson proceeds on the issue of one of the allegations listed in the EAW saying that there is no such thing as 'minor rape' outside of Sweden and that is a misuse of terminology.

One the issue of a fair trial Robertson says: "The evidence is all one way." All trials in Sweden are held in secret which distinguishes Sweden from every other country in Europe. Accordingly there is a "risk of flagrant denial of justice."

Robertson returns to the issue of the Swedish Prime Minister attacking Assange and accusing the defence of lying, which is "outrageous" and demonstrates beyond a doubt that Assange "won't get a fair trial." This by "our authorities and our standards" which constitutes a denial of justice for Julian Assange.

SC Montgomery's Submissions
There are six brief points:
1) Marianne Ny's authority is "certifiable."
2) The Framework decision and notification by Sweden makes the claim-Ny is authorised to issue an EAW
3) "Points of translation in regards to the prosecution role are mischievous"
4) The prosecution suggests that the easiest way of disposing of this point is (confirmed from) what the witness Sven-Erik Alhem said: "…everything was lawful and proper. Ny is authorised…clear material showing authorisation.
5) As for the Purpose of the warrant--It's clear that the Framework directive (allows it.)
6) …?

Montomery submits that "There is no reference to domestic phase because it's meant to be read generically, it's meant to be read in an EU context."

Montgomery continues and says that Robertson is wrong to say he has a 'cosmopolitan approach.' The contents of the warrant plainly state the purpose is prosecution of Assange. It is not a conviction case, nor is it a post conviction sentence, the charges are clearly specified and it's clear the matter is for prosecution.

There is "no exceptionality test" and in Montgomery's submissions the case could be decided on that point alone.

In relation to Ny's statements serving as evidence there is no defence submission stating or requiring that the prosecution statement is to take evidential form. Furthermore, the statements' purpose was not to serve as evidence. It should be "easier for a judicial authority to gather evidence" per part 2."

Montgomery submits, regarding Robertson's plea to fairness and the suggestion that it is unfair that his witnesses have been cross examined but not Ms Ny: that "Fairness is not decided in a vacuum. Context is king."

"In every single case this court has acted on material" in an EAW "and any supplementary material, without supposing the material was…not valid." It was never argued by the defence that an evidential form is required.

"It is the" view "of the judicial authority issuing the warrant that have the greatest weight." Robertson did not tell the court that the warrant was issued by request of the competent authority.

To the question "Is the purpose of Ms Ny prosecution?" Montgomery says: "That's simply not dealt with by the defence"

Julian Assange's presence is a requirement for interrogation in Sweden and the primary purpose is prosecution.

Montgomery addresses on dual criminality: "Does the offence call for a EAW?" and states that "an offence of rape will qualify if it is defined as rape by the issuing state per Article 2.2."

At about this time: "…The position in law re EAW is that if Sweden says it's rape, it's rape."

Montgomery concedes that proceedings had not reached the "technical Swedish stage of prosecution'" which may turn out to be a significant issue. "There's no recourse to any pan-European authorities ie case law. Even if there were, it is clear the Swedish offence of rape falls within the definition of rape of pan-European approach."

On the issue of the complainant's evidence, the defence's "attempt to play down minor rape as a not very serious offence, doesn't take into account that what Ms B describes... i.e. penetration whilst asleep, which would also be considered rape in the UK."

"This not a case of the police slipping under the bedclothes'"

Montgomery submits that Robertson is wrong, violence is relevant, it's not simply a question of "rough consensual sex." Montgomery says of Robertson: "No doubt rough consensual sex is something on which he able to give some useful information to the court."

There is a "Bit of a gasp in media room" at this assertion of Robertson's personal knowledge of rough consensual sex.

On the issue of proportionality, "even if Robertson was right to say minor rape is a trivial offence, triviality does not render extradition disproportionate."

"Proportionality requires that the complainants have the right to a trial." (Or: "Complainant has a right to be heard in a court.")

Montgomery asserts that she has demonstrated that "the claim that Julian Assange was not asked to attend hearing whilst in Sweden was false."

On the issue of Mutual Legal Assistance a person cannot be compelled to provide a DNA sample under that provision. "Assange provided DNA only because he was compelled under an inspector's order."

In relation to "secrecy, no one suggested the Swedish Court is indifferent to this issue… calling it a'secret trial' is a parody. It's just that the evidence is considered in private."

"Montgomery dismisses secret trial' fears as a parody.'"

Montgomery concedes that Swedish authorities disclosed material concerning the investigation to the media but the impact on the fairness trial should be considered not by this court but by a Swedish court.

Some evidence is now in the public domain such as the "texts, the tweets.. that's for a Swedish Court to consider, not this one…There's nothing in this case now that suggests abuse or that the trial would reach a level of fragrancy."

Montgomery finishes her submissions on the point that as "no soundbites on Guantanamo have been mentioned, I'm guessing we all agree extradition to the US is not a factor."

Robertson QC gives a short reply to the CPS prosecutor's submissions and says: "I never said rape was a trivial offence…we just said the terminology was improper for a serious offence. What matters for the open justice principle is the trial, the evidence, the conduct of the judges and the cross examination."

Responding to Montgomery's submission: "If Sweden says it's rape it's rape, is like saying if Sweden says sucking toes without washing them is rape, it's rape."

Robertson states a point of extradition law, on dual criminality, that the "court has a right to check whether the offence actually amounts to rape". And in relation to that: "Not only there was a consent to sex, the articulated wish for the sex to be protected was respected by Assange….The actions described are not criminal in this country."

On sex and what appeared to be the issue of consent: "What may be wanted at some moment can with further empathy become desired."

Robertson also says at about this point that "There has been no answer to secret trial concerns, nor to issue of lack of bail."

Robertson finishes with the statement: "It is clear the issuing authority is not legitimate under European law."

Submissions are completed and the Judge advises that his judicial decision will be delivered on February the 24th.

[David Guyatt]

Loved the Greenwald piece above.

But the real issue highlighted by this episode is just how lawless and unrestrained is the unified axis of government and corporate power. I've written many times about this issue -- the full-scale merger between public and private spheres -- because it's easily one of the most critical yet under-discussed political topics. Especially (though by no means only) in the worlds of the Surveillance and National Security State, the powers of the state have become largely privatized. There is very little separation between government power and corporate power. Those who wield the latter intrinsically wield the former. The revolving door between the highest levels of government and corporate offices rotates so fast and continuously that it has basically flown off its track and no longer provides even the minimal barrier it once did. It's not merely that corporate power is unrestrained; it's worse than that: corporations actively exploit the power of the state to further entrench and enhance their power.

That's what this anti-WikiLeaks campaign is generally: it's a concerted, unified effort between government and the most powerful entities in the private sector (Bank of America is the largest bank in the nation). The firms the Bank has hired (such as Booz Allen) are suffused with the highest level former defense and intelligence officials, while these other outside firms (including Hunton & Williams and Palantir) are extremely well-connected to the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government's obsession with destroying WikiLeaks has been well-documented. And because the U.S. Government is free to break the law without any constraints, oversight or accountability, so, too, are its "private partners" able to act lawlessly. That was the lesson of the Congressional vesting of full retroactive immunity on lawbreaking telecoms, of the refusal to prosecute any of the important Wall Street criminals who caused the 2008 financial crisis, and of the instinctive efforts of the political class to protect defrauding mortgage banks.

Say no more.

[Peter Lemkin]

Loved the Greenwald piece above.

But the real issue highlighted by this episode is just how lawless and unrestrained is the unified axis of government and corporate power. I've written many times about this issue -- the full-scale merger between public and private spheres -- because it's easily one of the most critical yet under-discussed political topics. Especially (though by no means only) in the worlds of the Surveillance and National Security State, the powers of the state have become largely privatized. There is very little separation between government power and corporate power. Those who wield the latter intrinsically wield the former. The revolving door between the highest levels of government and corporate offices rotates so fast and continuously that it has basically flown off its track and no longer provides even the minimal barrier it once did. It's not merely that corporate power is unrestrained; it's worse than that: corporations actively exploit the power of the state to further entrench and enhance their power.

That's what this anti-WikiLeaks campaign is generally: it's a concerted, unified effort between government and the most powerful entities in the private sector (Bank of America is the largest bank in the nation). The firms the Bank has hired (such as Booz Allen) are suffused with the highest level former defense and intelligence officials, while these other outside firms (including Hunton & Williams and Palantir) are extremely well-connected to the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government's obsession with destroying WikiLeaks has been well-documented. And because the U.S. Government is free to break the law without any constraints, oversight or accountability, so, too, are its "private partners" able to act lawlessly. That was the lesson of the Congressional vesting of full retroactive immunity on lawbreaking telecoms, of the refusal to prosecute any of the important Wall Street criminals who caused the 2008 financial crisis, and of the instinctive efforts of the political class to protect defrauding mortgage banks.

Say no more.

WOW! How true...how sadly true. Almost the perfect definition of fascism and no one but a few of us loners want to even face it....MSM is not allowed to. The Sheeple are afraid to and it doesn't fit into their 'religious' beliefs in their governmental systems being basically good and sound - even democratic. A secret revolution has taken place and only a few even know about it and and the secret police are about to [IMO] start silencing and eliminating us...they keep us at bay with their propaganda. "While a fine mess you've gotten us into this time, Olie!"

[Peter Lemkin]

PayPal suspends account of Bradley Manning supporters
Submitted by skdadl on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 17:59


PayPal, an online payment-transfer service, has apparently developed reservations about the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, which reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

As spokespersons for the Bradley Manning Support Network have observed, there is no obligation under US law for a private company to restrict fund-raising for an accused person:

They opted to apply an exceptional hurdle for us to clear in order to continue as a customer, whereas we have clearly provided the legally required information and verification. I think our dealings with PayPal should be a cautionary tale for any possibly controversial not-for-profit entity with a PayPal account," [Jeff] Paterson said, "While there may be no legal obligation to provide services, there is an ethical obligation. By shutting out legitimate nonprofit activity, PayPal shows itself to be morally bankrupt.

Like previous decisions of PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, and others to close down transfer of donations to WikiLeaks, this move against Courage to Resist and the Manning Support Network raises the spectre of private corporations acting as proxies for the political branches of government when the courts would not -- in effect, the invention of law that is at once privatized and politicized.

Members of the US Congress and media figures have sown suspicion in the past about any lawyer who has acted on behalf of prisoners at Guantanamo or even US citizens accused of "terrorist" activities. [Citation to come.] By the light of the Sixth Amendment, all such suspicion should be dissipated, and it is regrettable that companies like PayPal have decided to co-operate with a culture of fear and suspicion rather than to remember their duties as citizens of a republic of laws, not of men.