2013-11-02 Geoffrey Roberton's "The Refugee"

In an exclusive for the Sydney Morning Herald, Geoffrey Robertson has provided, from his new book published this week, an excerpt dealing with the "case" against Julian Assange.

This might be the most complete and most accurate summation yet.

The article deals with the systematic attempts to defame the WikiLeaks founder - some rather silly things that never got off the ground - and it also explains the full history of the case, as well as providing the legal entanglements that led to the current situation, including the very deplorable state of jurisprudence in what most people still assume is an ideal realm of "rule of law" in the far north of Europe.

Robertson and his wife put Assange up for a few days before the European Arrest Warrant was finally accepted in the UK. Roberton's wife also provided dialogue to the famous episode of the Simpsons featuring Assange.

More importantly, Robertson cites the actual facts in the case, facts that make Sweden of today look suspect at best and outright perverse at worst, before finally outlining four steps necessary to ending the current stalemate.

1. That on Assange's return to Sweden, arrangements should be made that would leave him at liberty (in the Australian embassy, if necessary) until any custodial sentence imposed at the end of his trial.
2. That his trial must be held in open court.
3. That he should be tried by a judge alone, or at least without "lay judges" recruited from political parties.
4. That when found not guilty, or at the end of any prison sentence served on conviction, he should be permitted to leave Sweden and return directly to Australia irrespective of any extradition request from any other state.

Robertson's book Dreaming Too Loud: Reflections on a Race Apart is published this week by Vintage Australia.
For more information on the case of Assange in Sweden, please consult the official websites:
http://assangeinswedenbook.com and http://swedenversusassange.com.

2013-11-03 Edward Snowden meets with Hans-Christian Ströbele

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden met with German Green Party MP Hans-Christian Ströbele on 31 October regarding his being a witness for a possible investigation into NSA spying in Germany.

Ströbele, who has been publicly calling for the German government to launch an investigation, travelled to Moscow to see if Snowden would be willing to participate.

Also in attendance were WikiLeaks journalist Sarah Harrison, former Spiegel editor Georg Mascolo, and - now representing Süddeutsche-Zeitung - John Goetz.

Snowden signed a letter stating that he would be willing to be an expert witness if circumstances allowed.

There is large public support in Germany for an official investigation into the lengths of US spying, now known to include tapping German chancellor Angela Merkel's phone. These revelations are based on documents provided by Snowden, meaning he is well-placed to be an expert witness for such an investigation.

Click here for the full report and four video clips from the meeting.

2013-11-06 Statement by Sarah Harrison

Wednesday 6 November 2013, 18:30 CET

As a journalist I have spent the last four months with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and arrived in Germany over the weekend. I worked in Hong Kong as part of the WikiLeaks team that brokered a number of asylum offers for Snowden and negotiated his safe exit from Hong Kong to take up his legal right to seek asylum. I was travelling with him on our way to Latin America when the United States revoked his passport, stranding him in Russia. For the next 39 days I remained with him in the transit zone of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, where I assisted in his legal application to 21 countries for asylum, including Germany, successfully securing his asylum in Russia despite substantial pressure by the United States. I then remained with him until our team was confident that he had established himself and was free from the interference of any government.

Whilst Edward Snowden is safe and protected until his asylum visa is due to be renewed in nine months' time, there is still much work to be done. The battle Snowden joined against state surveillance and for government transparency is one that WikiLeaks - and many others - have been fighting, and will continue to fight.

WikiLeaks' battles are many: we fight against unaccountable power and government secrecy, publishing analysis and documents for all affected and to forever provide the public with the history that is theirs. For this, we are fighting legal cases in many jurisdictions and face an unprecedented Grand Jury investigation in the United States. WikiLeaks continues to fight for the protection of sources. We have won the battle for Snowden's immediate future, but the broader war continues.

I hope I have shown a counter example: with the right assistance whistleblowers can speak the truth and keep their liberty.

Already, in the few days I have spent in Germany, it is heartening to see the people joining together and calling for their government to do what must be done - to investigate NSA spying revelations, and to offer Edward Snowden asylum. The United States should no longer be able to continue spying on every person around the globe, or persecuting those that speak the truth.

Snowden is currently safe in Russia, but there are whistleblowers and sources to whom this does not apply. Chelsea Manning has been subject to abusive treatment by the United States government and is currently serving a 35-year sentence for exposing the true nature of war. Jeremy Hammond is facing a decade in a New York jail for allegedly providing journalists with documents that exposed corporate surveillance. I hope I have shown a counter example: with the right assistance whistleblowers can speak the truth and keep their liberty.

Aggressive tactics are being used against journalists, publishers and experts who work so courageously to bring truth to the world. Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Jacob Appelbaum are all in effective exile. Barrett Brown is indicted for reporting on unethical surveillance practices. My editor Julian Assange has asylum over US threats, but the United Kingdom refuses to allow him to fully exercise this right, violating the law. The UK government also detained David Miranda under the UK Terrorism Act for collaborating with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald.

The UK Terrorism Act defines terrorism as the action or threat of action "designed to influence" any government "for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause". It prescribes actions that interfere with the functioning of an "electronic system" (i.e. the NSA's bulk spying program) or which the government alleges create a "risk" to a section of the public. It should be fanciful to suggest that national security journalism which has the purpose of producing honest government or enforcing basic privacy rights should be called "terrorism", but that is how the UK is choosing to interpret this law. Almost every story published on the GCHQ and NSA bulk spying programs falls under the UK government's interpretation of the word "terrorism". In response, our lawyers have advised me that it is not safe to return home.

The job of the press is to speak truth to power. And yet for doing our job we are persecuted. I say that these aggressive and illegal tactics to silence us - inventing arbitrary legal interpretations, over-zealous charges and disproportionate sentences - must not be permitted to succeed. I stand in solidarity with all those intimidated and persecuted for bringing the truth to the public.

In these times of secrecy and abuse of power there is only one solution - transparency. If our governments are so compromised that they will not tell us the truth, then we must step forward to grasp it. Provided with the unequivocal proof of primary source documents people can fight back. If our governments will not give this information to us, then we must take it for ourselves.

When whistleblowers come forward we need to fight for them, so others will be encouraged. When they are gagged, we must be their voice. When they are hunted, we must be their shield. When they are locked away, we must free them. Giving us the truth is not a crime. This is our data, our information, our history. We must fight to own it.

Courage is contagious.

Sarah Harrison, Wednesday 6 November 2013, Berlin

2013-11-15 Jeremy Hammond Sentencing Statement

Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Jeremy Hammond and I'm here to be sentenced for hacking activities carried out during my involvement with Anonymous. I have been locked up at MCC for the past 20 months and have had a lot of time to think about how I would explain my actions.

Before I begin, I want to take a moment to recognize the work of the people who have supported me. I want to thank all the lawyers and others who worked on my case: Elizabeth Fink, Susan Kellman, Sarah Kunstler, Emily Kunstler, Margaret Kunstler, and Grainne O'Neill. I also want to thank the National Lawyers Guild, the Jeremy Hammond Defense Committee and Support Network, Free Anons, the Anonymous Solidarity Network, Anarchist Black Cross, and all others who have helped me by writing a letter of support, sending me letters, attending my court dates, and spreading the word about my case. I also want to shout out my brothers and sisters behind bars and those who are still out there fighting the power.

The acts of civil disobedience and direct action that I am being sentenced for today are in line with the principles of community and equality that have guided my life. I hacked into dozens of high profile corporations and government institutions, understanding very clearly that what I was doing was against the law, and that my actions could land me back in federal prison. But I felt that I had an obligation to use my skills to expose and confront injustice-and to bring the truth to light.

Could I have achieved the same goals through legal means? I have tried everything from voting petitions to peaceful protest and have found that those in power do not want the truth to be exposed. When we speak truth to power we are ignored at best and brutally suppressed at worst. We are confronting a power structure that does not respect its own system of checks and balances, never mind the rights of its own citizens or the international community.

My introduction to politics was when George W Bush stole the Presidential election in 2000, then took advantage of the waves of racism and patriotism after 9/11 to launch unprovoked imperialist wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. I took to the streets in protest naively believing our voices would be heard in Washington and we could stop the war. Instead, we were labeled as traitors, beaten, and arrested.

I have been arrested for numerous acts of civil disobedience on the streets of Chicago, but it wasn't until 2005 that I used my computer skills to break the law in political protest. I was arrested by the FBI for hacking into the computer systems of a right-wing, pro-war group called Protest Warrior, an organization that sold racist t-shirts on their website and harassed anti-war groups. I was charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the "intended loss" in my case was arbitrarily calculated by multiplying the 5000 credit cards in Protest Warrior's database by $500, resulting in a total of $2.5 million.

My sentencing guidelines were calculated on the basis of this "loss", even though not a single credit card was used or distributed - by me or anyone else. I was sentenced to two years in prison.

While in prison I have seen for myself the ugly reality of how the criminal justice system destroys the lives of the millions of people held captive behind bars. The experience solidified my opposition to repressive forms of power and the importance of standing up for what you believe.

When I was released, I was eager to continue my involvement in struggles for social change. I didn't want to go back to prison, so I focused on above-ground community organizing. But over time, I became frustrated with the limitations of peaceful protest, seeing it as reformist and ineffective. The Obama administration continued the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, escalated the use of drones, and failed to close Guantanamo Bay.

Around this time, I was following the work of groups like WikiLeaks and Anonymous. It was very inspiring to see the ideas of hacktivism coming to fruition. I was particularly moved by the heroic actions of Chelsea Manning, who had exposed the atrocities committed by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. She took an enormous personal risk to leak this information - believing that the public had a right to know and hoping that her disclosures would be a positive step to end these abuses. It is heart-wrenching to hear about her cruel treatment in military lockup.

I thought long and hard about choosing this path again. I had to ask myself, if Chelsea Manning fell into the abysmal nightmare of prison fighting for the truth, could I in good conscience do any less, if I was able? I thought the best way to demonstrate solidarity was to continue the work of exposing and confronting corruption.

I was drawn to Anonymous because I believe in autonomous, decentralized direct action. At the time Anonymous was involved in operations in support of the Arab Spring uprisings, against censorship, and in defense of WikiLeaks. I had a lot to contribute, including technical skills, and how to better articulate ideas and goals. It was an exciting time - the birth of a digital dissent movement, where the definitions and capabilities of hacktivism were being shaped.

I was especially interested in the work of the hackers of LulzSec who were breaking into some significant targets and becoming increasingly political. Around this time, I first started talking to Sabu, who was very open about the hacks he supposedly committed, and was encouraging hackers to unite and attack major government and corporate systems under the banner of Anti Security. But very early in my involvement, the other Lulzsec hackers were arrested, leaving me to break into systems and write press releases. Later, I would learn that Sabu had been the first one arrested, and that the entire time I was talking to him he was an FBI informant.

Anonymous was also involved in the early stages of Occupy Wall Street. I was regularly participating on the streets as part of Occupy Chicago and was very excited to see a worldwide mass movement against the injustices of capitalism and racism. In several short months, the "Occupations" came to an end, closed by police crackdowns and mass arrests of protestors who were kicked out of their own public parks. The repression of Anonymous and the Occupy Movement set the tone for Antisec in the following months - the majority of our hacks against police targets were in retaliation for the arrests of our comrades.

I targeted law enforcement systems because of the racism and inequality with which the criminal law is enforced. I targeted the manufacturers and distributors of military and police equipment who profit from weaponry used to advance US political and economic interests abroad and to repress people at home. I targeted information security firms because they work in secret to protect government and corporate interests at the expense of individual rights, undermining and discrediting activists, journalists and other truth seekers, and spreading disinformation.

I had never even heard of Stratfor until Sabu brought it to my attention. Sabu was encouraging people to invade systems, and helping to strategize and facilitate attacks. He even provided me with vulnerabilities of targets passed on by other hackers, so it came as a great surprise when I learned that Sabu had been working with the FBI the entire time.

On December 4, 2011, Sabu was approached by another hacker who had already broken into Stratfor's credit card database. Sabu, under the watchful eye of his government handlers, then brought the hack to Antisec by inviting this hacker to our private chatroom, where he supplied download links to the full credit card database as well as the initial vulnerability access point to Stratfor's systems.

I spent some time researching Stratfor and reviewing the information we were given, and decided that their activities and client base made them a deserving target. I did find it ironic that Stratfor's wealthy and powerful customer base had their credit cards used to donate to humanitarian organizations, but my main role in the attack was to retrieve Stratfor's private email spools which is where all the dirty secrets are typically found.

It took me more than a week to gain further access into Stratfor's internal systems, but I eventually broke into their mail server. There was so much information, we needed several servers of our own in order to transfer the emails. Sabu, who was involved with the operation at every step, offered a server, which was provided and monitored by the FBI. Over the next weeks, the emails were transferred, the credit cards were used for donations, and Stratfor's systems were defaced and destroyed. Why the FBI would introduce us to the hacker who found the initial vulnerability and allow this hack to continue remains a mystery.

As a result of the Stratfor hack, some of the dangers of the unregulated private intelligence industry are now known. It has been revealed through WikiLeaks and other journalists around the world that Stratfor maintained a worldwide network of informants that they used to engage in intrusive and possibly illegal surveillance activities on behalf of large multinational corporations.

After Stratfor, I continued to break into other targets, using a powerful "zero day exploit" allowing me administrator access to systems running the popular Plesk webhosting platform. Sabu asked me many times for access to this exploit, which I refused to give him. Without his own independent access, Sabu continued to supply me with lists of vulnerable targets. I broke into numerous websites he supplied, uploaded the stolen email accounts and databases onto Sabu's FBI server, and handed over passwords and backdoors that enabled Sabu (and, by extension, his FBI handlers) to control these targets.

These intrusions, all of which were suggested by Sabu while cooperating with the FBI, affected thousands of domain names and consisted largely of foreign government websites, including those of XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, XXXX, XXXXXX, XXXXX, XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and the XXXXXX XXXXXXX. In one instance, Sabu and I provided access information to hackers who went on to deface and destroy many government websites in XXXXXX. I don't know how other information I provided to him may have been used, but I think the government's collection and use of this data needs to be investigated.

The government celebrates my conviction and imprisonment, hoping that it will close the door on the full story. I took responsibility for my actions, by pleading guilty, but when will the government be made to answer for its crimes?

The US hypes the threat of hackers in order to justify the multi billion dollar cyber security industrial complex, but it is also responsible for the same conduct it aggressively prosecutes and claims to work to prevent. The hypocrisy of "law and order" and the injustices caused by capitalism cannot be cured by institutional reform but through civil disobedience and direct action. Yes I broke the law, but I believe that sometimes laws must be broken in order to make room for change.

In the immortal word of Frederick Douglas, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

This is not to say that I do not have any regrets. I realize that I released the personal information of innocent people who had nothing to do with the operations of the institutions I targeted. I apologize for the release of data that was harmful to individuals and irrelevant to my goals. I believe in the individual right to privacy - from government surveillance, and from actors like myself, and I appreciate the irony of my own involvement in the trampling of these rights. I am committed to working to make this world a better place for all of us. I still believe in the importance of hacktivism as a form of civil disobedience, but it is time for me to move on to other ways of seeking change. My time in prison has taken a toll on my family, friends, and community. I know I am needed at home. I recognize that 7 years ago I stood before a different federal judge, facing similar charges, but this does not lessen the sincerity of what I say to you today.

It has taken a lot for me to write this, to explain my actions, knowing that doing so - honestly - could cost me more years of my life in prison. I am aware that I could get as many as 10 years, but I hope that I do not, as I believe there is so much work to be done.

STAY STRONG AND KEEP STRUGGLING!

To schedule interviews with Jeremy Hammond's attorneys and supporters following today's sentencing please contact Andy Stepanian, 631.291.3010, andy@sparrowmedia.net.

The Jeremy Hammond Defense Committee is a coalition of family members, activists, lawyers, and other supporters who are working together to protect free speech and to support Jeremy Hammond. The committee's goal is to provide information to the public and the press, to organize events related to Jeremy's case, and to support Jeremy while he is in jail. For more information, please visit http://freejeremy.net.

See also the Hammond Support Letter from World Media hosted by WikiLeaks.

2013-11-29 Assange Statement on Anakata Extradition

Statement by WikiLeaks Publisher Julian Assange concerning Sweden's extradition of WikiLeaks consultant Gottfrid "Anakata" Svartholm Warg:

"It is time someone says it like it is: Gottfrid Svartholm Warg is a political prisoner and Sweden has fallen off the map of decent nations in its treatment of him. Gottfrid has always been ideologically driven to inform the world; he worked tirelessly to help WikiLeaks expose the slaughter of civilians in Iraq by a US helicopter gunship and was responsible for an important part of our infrastructure."

"There are thousands of alleged cyber criminals, but instead of dealing with these cases, we see vast resources diverted yet again by the Swedish state into smashing Gottfrid. These attempts include the first trial of Gottfrid after US pressure (extensively documented in US embassy cables here released by WikiLeaks), his subsequent rendering from Cambodia by the Swedish intelligence service SAPO, his months of incommunicado detention in Sweden, and now his irregular extradition to Denmark - for a charge he was just acquitted of."

"Stop Playing the Swede"

"What is going on is obvious to anyone who cares to look; Gottfrid is being treated differently from everyone else because the Swedish state perceives him to have mocked its security complex and the United States. But within the insular, conformist world of Stockholm what has happened to Gottfrid is so demeaning to Swedish prestige, that like Sweden's CIA rendition program, it is literally unspeakable. This Swedish social and political phenomenon has been so bad, for so long, that even the Spanish have a popular saying: 'Stop playing the Swede' - stop pretending that you don't know what is going on. Instead of detailing the breakdown of the rule of law in Gottfrid's case, Sweden's national broadcaster takes pleasure in fantasies of Gottfrid's future suffering: joking at length on air about the years of prison rape Gottfrid might have ahead of him."

Links:

For more information see Anakata's mother's twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/KSvartholm

Letter by Anakata's mother, Kristina Svartholm, to Fair Trials International (August 2013):
http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/KSvartholm_to_FTI.pdf

Background on the Danish extradition:
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founders-imminent-extradition-raises-...

Swedish prosecution documents against Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, released May 2013: http://wikileaks.org/gottfrid-docs/

2013-11-29 WikiLeaks Calls for US to Drop Grand Jury

Friday 29 November 2013, 12:00 GMT

In the face of the US government's three-year attack on WikiLeaks, an anonymous Department of Justice official talking to the Washington Post now claims that there is little possibility of prosecuting Julian Assange for publishing, but that a Grand Jury remains empanelled and the situation may change. So, we have a much-hedged statement by someone who cannot be identified claiming that the government may not indict Julian Assange for publishing. This is hardly the assurance that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange need. It is hardly the assurance that others who seek to reveal material that might offend the government need to carry on their activities. The damage to a free press by this heavy-handed, unwarranted and continued investigation into a publisher is severe.

The anonymous assertion that Julian Assange may not be indicted for publication of classified documents, even if true, only deals with a small part of the grand jury investigation. That investigation has been primarily concerned with trying to prove somehow that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks were involved, not merely in publication, but in a conspiracy with their sources. There is also the question as to the status of the DoJ investigations into WikiLeaks involvement in the Stratfor and Snowden matters.

For three years WikiLeaks and its publisher and founder Julian Assange have faced an unprecedented and wide-ranging Grand Jury investigation into its publishing and sourcing activities, with claims that somehow these activities might constitute a conspiracy to commit espionage, theft or access violations. That investigation, which has involved paid informers, unlawful interrogations in Europe and subpoenas to WikiLeaks supporters and social media companies, has caused untold damage to the free press. It has chilled other publishers and journalists from publishing articles and documents to which the public ought to have access. It has made many fearful of association, including PayPal, Visa, Bank of America and other financial services companies, who continue to blockade transfers from us, from our supporters and even donations to our political party in Australia. Despite these and many other efforts, the US government has failed to destroy WikiLeaks, which remains a vigorous publishing organisation.

The formal position of the US Department of Justice is that the investigation continues. Rather than caveat riddled claims from anonymous officials with undefined motivations, the government ought to do the right thing: close the investigation and formally and unequivocally tell WikiLeaks that no charges will be brought. Despite our lawyers' repeated requests, they refuse to do so. Presently, the situation for WikiLeaks and its publisher Julian Assange remains unchanged. Perhaps with such an assurance this dark chapter for freedom of the press can be closed.

Approved by Julian Assange, Publisher, on behalf of WikiLeaks

Donate!