By William Fisher
As pro- and anti-Wikileaks forces ratchet up their battle, and Wikileaks’ impresario marks time in storied, overcrowded, and very Victorian Wandsworth Prison in southwest London, a group of his supporters are taking a different tack. They’re not hacking Visa or Master Card or Sarah Palen; instead they’re speaking out in no uncertain terms. Their message: On balance, Wikileaks has performed a valuable public service for which he is now being persecuted with trumped up sex charges.
These champions of transparency and enemies of government secrecy are the small but vocal community known as the human rights constituency. Many were among the first to defend Wikileaks and among the most vocal.
Joining them is an equally articulate community: the groups that campaign tirelessly for press freedom.
Here are some of the sentiments expressed by these groups when contacted by IPS:
Dinah PoKempner of Human Rights Watch says she “has no information regarding Mr. Assange's personal actions in Sweden and thus no position on his arrest on charges of sexual assault other than that like any suspect in a criminal case, he should be accorded full rights of defense due under international and domestic law.”
However, [her organization does] have concerns at recent allegations from various political figures that the actions of Wikileaks in releasing classified US cables somehow amount to either "terrorism" or "espionage" in the absence of evidence of any intent to attack civilians or endanger national security. Threats made against Mr. Assange's life are particularly reprehensible,” she says.
She added: “Although the quantity of the Wikileaks cable release is unprecedented, the nature of the material is not. Traditional media frequently reveal non-public government information of an embarrassing nature, and this can be in the public interest and in furtherance of the right to receive information in a democratic society. We have expressed concern to Wikileaks that care be taken not to reveal information that endangers lives, and we continue to monitor the disclosures to that end.”
Michael Ratner, the firebrand President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS, “ Wikileaks has played a critical role in giving the American people the truth about the lies the US government has told about its wars, especially those in the Middle East and Central Asia. We were lied to about Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other places. There can be no issue more important then getting the truth out about war and the drum beats of war; only then can people act responsibly to protest war. Why did no other major newspaper bring the US lies to our attention?”
He pivoted to Assange's arrest, saying, “Yes, the charges for which he is being investigated need to be investigated. Yet the irregularities in the proceeding are glaring. Why was the case dropped originally? Why was he allowed to leave Sweden? Why was an arrest warrant issued to bring him back to Sweden for questioning--which he is willing to do at a Swedish embassy in the UK? Why was bail denied when he surrendered and his lawyers had let the police know he would do so when the warrant was served? Finally, is the hand of the US the answer to these questions? Sweden is not the UK; the US can squash that tiny country. The chances of getting its hands on Assange from there are probably improved--and that may be the story.”
Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, focused on widespread rumors that there is a conspiracy between the U.K. and Sweden to extradite Assange to the United States.
She told us, “We’re deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea. The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents”
“If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA’s secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome,” she said, adding,
“The broader lesson of the WikiLeaks phenomenon is that President Obama should recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to.”
AMNESTY International played a more direct role than most. It said one of Wiki’s leaked diplomatic cables corroborates images released earlier this year by Amnesty International showing that the U.S. military carried out a missile strike in south Yemen in December 2009 that killed dozens of local civilians, including women and children.
The organization said that in the secret cable from January 2010 published by Wikileaks, Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh is reported as having assured U.S. General David Petraeus that his government would “continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.”
Human Rights First notes that the latest round of WikiLeaks documents is rousing discussion about U.S. diplomatic relations – but Human Rights First, along with Human Rights Watch, has raised the question of human rights activists who may be at danger if certain information is not redacted. Wikileaks says it has been especially careful in removing those names and, according to human rights activist Chip Pitts, “The US Government has now repeatedly admitted that contrary to their prior alarmist statements no one has come to harm as a result of the Wikileaks disclosures (to which I would add none is likely, since Wikileaks has followed the lead of the other major news outlets in redacting information that would actually endanger lives or national security).
Organizations dedicated to press freedom have been equally outspoken.
Reporters Without Borders says it “can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.”
They say that “any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.”
John Kampfner, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, associated with IFEX (the International Freedom of Expression Exchange), says, “Good journalists and editors should be capable of separating the awkward from the damaging. Information that could endanger life, either in the short term or as part of a longer-term operation, should remain secret.”
He predicts: “Once this latest flurry is over, prepare for the backlash. Mr. Assange’s industrial-scale leaking may lead to legislation in a number of countries that makes whistle-blowing harder than it already is. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Wikileaks revelations is not that they have happened, but it took someone as mercurial as Mr. Assange to be the conduit.”
He added, ”Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power.”
IFEX reiterated its call for “governments to improve the public's access to information, and only limit access if governments can demonstrate it would cause a specific and articulated harm. "The rules should not be used to hide other interests. Indeed, the existing U.S. rules on secrecy prohibit classifying information about crimes and as a means to prevent embarrassment.”
He believes “those rules are ignored far too often."
Chip Pitts, past president and current member of the Executive Committee of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told us, “Assange’s arrest now further complicates and escalates the situation: The ferocity with which the establishment has targeted Assange reveals its profound concern over the historic new trend toward global transparency Wikileaks exemplifies: if the big thieves can’t keep their thievery secret, what will they do?
He answers his question: “They thus strive with all their might to dramatically quash this upstart before others follow Assange’s example. Yet international as well as U.S. law is now clearly implicated, including international human rights law (for example the rights to free expression – including “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” -- and fair trial) and the particulars of the extradition treaty to which Assange will ultimately be subject (for example Sweden’s, which precludes extradition for “political” offenses).”
Pitts believes these actions “will succeed only if the rule of law continues to be eroded on the global level as it has been at the national level in recent years, with Kafkaesque labels of ‘terrorism’ or ‘espionage’, and invocations of ‘state secrecy’ and ‘military necessity’ being used to chill journalists and shield even the most egregious facts from coming to light – let alone being used to finally hold the high and mighty accountable for their crimes.”
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Targeted Killing. Of Who?
By William Fisher
A Federal judge yesterday dismissed a court challenge to the policy of the administration of Barack Obama to target and execute U.S. citizens outside combat zones who do not pose an imminent threat.
Judge John Bates found that the plaintiff, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, did not have “standing” before the court -- the right to assert the interests of his son, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, who it is believed has been targeted for assassination. For this reason, the judge did not consider the merits of the case.
Judge Bates ruled that “there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is ‘constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable." Regarding the latter "political question" issue, the judge acknowledged "the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion."
Bates called the case "unique and extraordinary," and said it presented "[s]tark, and perplexing, questions" and found that the merits "present fundamental questions of separation of powers involving the proper role of the courts in our constitutional structure."
Ultimately, however, he dismissed the case on procedural grounds and found that "the serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day…"
The suit had been brought by The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in August.
Following the granting the government's motion to dismiss the case, Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, said, "If the court's ruling is correct, the government has unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation."
He added, "It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty. It's worth remembering that the power that the court invests in the president today will be available not just in this case but in future cases, and not just to the current president but to every future president. It is a profound mistake to allow this unparalleled power to be exercised free from the checks and balances that apply in every other context. We continue to believe that the government's power to use lethal force against American citizens should be subject to meaningful oversight by the courts."
Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the National Security Project of the
ACLU Foundation, told IPS, “The court has drastically limited who can come into court to challenge a targeted killing before the fact. That said, if a targeted person is killed, the targeted person's estate could probably try to bring a wrongful death action after the fact.”
He continued: “The trouble is that Judge Bates's ruling suggests that courts should have no role in determining the lawfulness of a targeted killing even after the fact -- for example in a wrongful death lawsuit -- even if the victim is a U.S. citizen. The decision takes the view that killing citizens abroad in the name of national security is a ‘political question’," and so is reserved to the exclusive judgment of the President.”
“Under this view,” he said, “the courts can have no role whatsoever in assessing compliance with the Constitution -- either before or after a targeted killing occurs -- because those questions are reserved exclusively to the President. This is a very dangerous position, and is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantee of checks and balances.”
Manes drove home his point: Judge Bates's decision “would effectively grant the President unreviewable authority to order the targeted killing of Americans located far from any combat zone who pose no imminent threat. According to Judge Bates, the rules governing targeted killing of citizens can be written and applied in secret, with no independent checks at all. We reject the idea that the President has such a sweeping power over the lives and deaths of citizens abroad.”
The ACLU and CCR were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asked the court to rule that, outside the context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asked the court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
Judge Bates asked but did not answer the troubling question, "How is it that judicial approval is required when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for electronic surveillance, but that, according to defendants, judicial scrutiny is prohibited when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for death?"
Meanwhile, A Yemeni judge ordered police on Saturday to capture "dead or alive" Anwar al-Awlaki, whom the U.S. government portrays as a radical Muslim cleric who has been linked to several terror plots in the U.S. He has been tied to the cargo plane bomb plot last month, the Detroit underwear bomber, and may be connected to the attempted Times Square bombing.
Other human rights organizations are also weighing on this controversial legal battle. Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on President Barack Obama to “immediately clarify [the government’s] legal rationale for targeted killings.
In a letter to President Obama, HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth said the government “should answer the fundamental questions of how his administration determines whether a person may be targeted”.
He added, “Such operations may be lawful under certain circumstances, but absent clear boundaries, they will inevitably violate international law and set a dangerous precedent for abusive regimes around the globe.”
The Obama administration dramatically expanded the use of targeted killings outside of traditional battlefields following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Many of these killings are conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency through the use of Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (drones). The US government asserts that it has authority under international law to use lethal force outside of clearly defined war zones because it is engaged in a global armed conflict with al Qaeda and associated forces.
Roth’s letter to Obama said the “US government claims that the entire world is a battleground in which the laws of war are applicable undermine the protections of international law. This discredited notion invites the application of lethal force by other countries in situations where the US would strongly object to its use.”
HRW called on Obama to “provide greater clarity on how the US government determines when a targeted killing in an armed conflict situation meets the requirements of distinction and proportionality under the laws of war and the measures it is taking to minimize civilian harm. During armed conflict, only combatants or civilians who are actively participating in hostilities may be lawfully targeted.”
Roth offered a number of detailed recommendations, including: Do not define all operations as part of a "global armed conflict"; define who may be legally targeted; ensure compliance with the laws of war; ensure compliance with international human rights law; improve transparency and accountability; minimize harm to civilians; and avoid dangerous precedents;
A Federal judge yesterday dismissed a court challenge to the policy of the administration of Barack Obama to target and execute U.S. citizens outside combat zones who do not pose an imminent threat.
Judge John Bates found that the plaintiff, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, did not have “standing” before the court -- the right to assert the interests of his son, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, who it is believed has been targeted for assassination. For this reason, the judge did not consider the merits of the case.
Judge Bates ruled that “there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is ‘constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable." Regarding the latter "political question" issue, the judge acknowledged "the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion."
Bates called the case "unique and extraordinary," and said it presented "[s]tark, and perplexing, questions" and found that the merits "present fundamental questions of separation of powers involving the proper role of the courts in our constitutional structure."
Ultimately, however, he dismissed the case on procedural grounds and found that "the serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day…"
The suit had been brought by The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in August.
Following the granting the government's motion to dismiss the case, Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, said, "If the court's ruling is correct, the government has unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation."
He added, "It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty. It's worth remembering that the power that the court invests in the president today will be available not just in this case but in future cases, and not just to the current president but to every future president. It is a profound mistake to allow this unparalleled power to be exercised free from the checks and balances that apply in every other context. We continue to believe that the government's power to use lethal force against American citizens should be subject to meaningful oversight by the courts."
Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the National Security Project of the
ACLU Foundation, told IPS, “The court has drastically limited who can come into court to challenge a targeted killing before the fact. That said, if a targeted person is killed, the targeted person's estate could probably try to bring a wrongful death action after the fact.”
He continued: “The trouble is that Judge Bates's ruling suggests that courts should have no role in determining the lawfulness of a targeted killing even after the fact -- for example in a wrongful death lawsuit -- even if the victim is a U.S. citizen. The decision takes the view that killing citizens abroad in the name of national security is a ‘political question’," and so is reserved to the exclusive judgment of the President.”
“Under this view,” he said, “the courts can have no role whatsoever in assessing compliance with the Constitution -- either before or after a targeted killing occurs -- because those questions are reserved exclusively to the President. This is a very dangerous position, and is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantee of checks and balances.”
Manes drove home his point: Judge Bates's decision “would effectively grant the President unreviewable authority to order the targeted killing of Americans located far from any combat zone who pose no imminent threat. According to Judge Bates, the rules governing targeted killing of citizens can be written and applied in secret, with no independent checks at all. We reject the idea that the President has such a sweeping power over the lives and deaths of citizens abroad.”
The ACLU and CCR were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asked the court to rule that, outside the context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asked the court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
Judge Bates asked but did not answer the troubling question, "How is it that judicial approval is required when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for electronic surveillance, but that, according to defendants, judicial scrutiny is prohibited when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for death?"
Meanwhile, A Yemeni judge ordered police on Saturday to capture "dead or alive" Anwar al-Awlaki, whom the U.S. government portrays as a radical Muslim cleric who has been linked to several terror plots in the U.S. He has been tied to the cargo plane bomb plot last month, the Detroit underwear bomber, and may be connected to the attempted Times Square bombing.
Other human rights organizations are also weighing on this controversial legal battle. Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on President Barack Obama to “immediately clarify [the government’s] legal rationale for targeted killings.
In a letter to President Obama, HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth said the government “should answer the fundamental questions of how his administration determines whether a person may be targeted”.
He added, “Such operations may be lawful under certain circumstances, but absent clear boundaries, they will inevitably violate international law and set a dangerous precedent for abusive regimes around the globe.”
The Obama administration dramatically expanded the use of targeted killings outside of traditional battlefields following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Many of these killings are conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency through the use of Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (drones). The US government asserts that it has authority under international law to use lethal force outside of clearly defined war zones because it is engaged in a global armed conflict with al Qaeda and associated forces.
Roth’s letter to Obama said the “US government claims that the entire world is a battleground in which the laws of war are applicable undermine the protections of international law. This discredited notion invites the application of lethal force by other countries in situations where the US would strongly object to its use.”
HRW called on Obama to “provide greater clarity on how the US government determines when a targeted killing in an armed conflict situation meets the requirements of distinction and proportionality under the laws of war and the measures it is taking to minimize civilian harm. During armed conflict, only combatants or civilians who are actively participating in hostilities may be lawfully targeted.”
Roth offered a number of detailed recommendations, including: Do not define all operations as part of a "global armed conflict"; define who may be legally targeted; ensure compliance with the laws of war; ensure compliance with international human rights law; improve transparency and accountability; minimize harm to civilians; and avoid dangerous precedents;
No Laptops in Wandsworth Prison
By William Fisher
As pro- and anti-Wikileaks forces ratchet up their battle, and Wikileaks’ impresario marks time in storied, overcrowded, and very Victorian Wandsworth Prison in southwest London, a group of his supporters are taking a different tack. They’re not hacking Visa or Master Card or Sarah Palen; instead they’re speaking out in no uncertain terms. Their message: On balance, Wikileaks has performed a valuable public service for which he is now being persecuted with trumped up sex charges.
These champions of transparency and enemies of government secrecy are the small but vocal community known as the human rights constituency. Many were among the first to defend Wikileaks and among the most vocal.
Joining them is an equally articulate community: the groups that campaign tirelessly for press freedom.
Here are some of the sentiments expressed by these groups when contacted by IPS:
Dinah PoKempner of Human Rights Watch says she “has no information regarding Mr. Assange's personal actions in Sweden and thus no position on his arrest on charges of sexual assault other than that like any suspect in a criminal case, he should be accorded full rights of defense due under international and domestic law.”
However, [her organization does] have concerns at recent allegations from various political figures that the actions of Wikileaks in releasing classified US cables somehow amount to either "terrorism" or "espionage" in the absence of evidence of any intent to attack civilians or endanger national security. Threats made against Mr. Assange's life are particularly reprehensible,” she says.
She added: “Although the quantity of the Wikileaks cable release is unprecedented, the nature of the material is not. Traditional media frequently reveal non-public government information of an embarrassing nature, and this can be in the public interest and in furtherance of the right to receive information in a democratic society. We have expressed concern to Wikileaks that care be taken not to reveal information that endangers lives, and we continue to monitor the disclosures to that end.”
Michael Ratner, the firebrand President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS, “ Wikileaks has played a critical role in giving the American people the truth about the lies the US government has told about its wars, especially those in the Middle East and Central Asia. We were lied to about Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other places. There can be no issue more important then getting the truth out about war and the drum beats of war; only then can people act responsibly to protest war. Why did no other major newspaper bring the US lies to our attention?”
He pivoted to Assange's arrest, saying, “Yes, the charges for which he is being investigated need to be investigated. Yet the irregularities in the proceeding are glaring. Why was the case dropped originally? Why was he allowed to leave Sweden? Why was an arrest warrant issued to bring him back to Sweden for questioning--which he is willing to do at a Swedish embassy in the UK? Why was bail denied when he surrendered and his lawyers had let the police know he would do so when the warrant was served? Finally, is the hand of the US the answer to these questions? Sweden is not the UK; the US can squash that tiny country. The chances of getting its hands on Assange from there are probably improved--and that may be the story.”
Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, focused on widespread rumors that there is a conspiracy between the U.K. and Sweden to extradite Assange to the United States.
She told us, “We’re deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea. The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents”
“If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA’s secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome,” she said, adding,
“The broader lesson of the WikiLeaks phenomenon is that President Obama should recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to.”
AMNESTY International played a more direct role than most. It said one of Wiki’s leaked diplomatic cables corroborates images released earlier this year by Amnesty International showing that the U.S. military carried out a missile strike in south Yemen in December 2009 that killed dozens of local civilians, including women and children.
The organization said that in the secret cable from January 2010 published by Wikileaks, Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh is reported as having assured U.S. General David Petraeus that his government would “continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.”
Human Rights First notes that the latest round of WikiLeaks documents is rousing discussion about U.S. diplomatic relations – but Human Rights First, along with Human Rights Watch, has raised the question of human rights activists who may be at danger if certain information is not redacted. Wikileaks says it has been especially careful in removing those names and, according to human rights activist Chip Pitts, “The US Government has now repeatedly admitted that contrary to their prior alarmist statements no one has come to harm as a result of the Wikileaks disclosures (to which I would add none is likely, since Wikileaks has followed the lead of the other major news outlets in redacting information that would actually endanger lives or national security).
Organizations dedicated to press freedom have been equally outspoken.
Reporters Without Borders says it “can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.”
They say that “any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.”
John Kampfner, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, associated with IFEX (the International Freedom of Expression Exchange), says, “Good journalists and editors should be capable of separating the awkward from the damaging. Information that could endanger life, either in the short term or as part of a longer-term operation, should remain secret.”
He predicts: “Once this latest flurry is over, prepare for the backlash. Mr. Assange’s industrial-scale leaking may lead to legislation in a number of countries that makes whistle-blowing harder than it already is. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Wikileaks revelations is not that they have happened, but it took someone as mercurial as Mr. Assange to be the conduit.”
He added, ”Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power.”
IFEX reiterated its call for “governments to improve the public's access to information, and only limit access if governments can demonstrate it would cause a specific and articulated harm. "The rules should not be used to hide other interests. Indeed, the existing U.S. rules on secrecy prohibit classifying information about crimes and as a means to prevent embarrassment.”
He believes “those rules are ignored far too often."
Chip Pitts, past president and current member of the Executive Committee of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told us, “Assange’s arrest now further complicates and escalates the situation: The ferocity with which the establishment has targeted Assange reveals its profound concern over the historic new trend toward global transparency Wikileaks exemplifies: if the big thieves can’t keep their thievery secret, what will they do?
He answers his question: “They thus strive with all their might to dramatically quash this upstart before others follow Assange’s example. Yet international as well as U.S. law is now clearly implicated, including international human rights law (for example the rights to free expression – including “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” -- and fair trial) and the particulars of the extradition treaty to which Assange will ultimately be subject (for example Sweden’s, which precludes extradition for “political” offenses).”
Pitts believes these actions “will succeed only if the rule of law continues to be eroded on the global level as it has been at the national level in recent years, with Kafkaesque labels of ‘terrorism’ or ‘espionage’, and invocations of ‘state secrecy’ and ‘military necessity’ being used to chill journalists and shield even the most egregious facts from coming to light – let alone being used to finally hold the high and mighty accountable for their crimes.”
As pro- and anti-Wikileaks forces ratchet up their battle, and Wikileaks’ impresario marks time in storied, overcrowded, and very Victorian Wandsworth Prison in southwest London, a group of his supporters are taking a different tack. They’re not hacking Visa or Master Card or Sarah Palen; instead they’re speaking out in no uncertain terms. Their message: On balance, Wikileaks has performed a valuable public service for which he is now being persecuted with trumped up sex charges.
These champions of transparency and enemies of government secrecy are the small but vocal community known as the human rights constituency. Many were among the first to defend Wikileaks and among the most vocal.
Joining them is an equally articulate community: the groups that campaign tirelessly for press freedom.
Here are some of the sentiments expressed by these groups when contacted by IPS:
Dinah PoKempner of Human Rights Watch says she “has no information regarding Mr. Assange's personal actions in Sweden and thus no position on his arrest on charges of sexual assault other than that like any suspect in a criminal case, he should be accorded full rights of defense due under international and domestic law.”
However, [her organization does] have concerns at recent allegations from various political figures that the actions of Wikileaks in releasing classified US cables somehow amount to either "terrorism" or "espionage" in the absence of evidence of any intent to attack civilians or endanger national security. Threats made against Mr. Assange's life are particularly reprehensible,” she says.
She added: “Although the quantity of the Wikileaks cable release is unprecedented, the nature of the material is not. Traditional media frequently reveal non-public government information of an embarrassing nature, and this can be in the public interest and in furtherance of the right to receive information in a democratic society. We have expressed concern to Wikileaks that care be taken not to reveal information that endangers lives, and we continue to monitor the disclosures to that end.”
Michael Ratner, the firebrand President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS, “ Wikileaks has played a critical role in giving the American people the truth about the lies the US government has told about its wars, especially those in the Middle East and Central Asia. We were lied to about Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other places. There can be no issue more important then getting the truth out about war and the drum beats of war; only then can people act responsibly to protest war. Why did no other major newspaper bring the US lies to our attention?”
He pivoted to Assange's arrest, saying, “Yes, the charges for which he is being investigated need to be investigated. Yet the irregularities in the proceeding are glaring. Why was the case dropped originally? Why was he allowed to leave Sweden? Why was an arrest warrant issued to bring him back to Sweden for questioning--which he is willing to do at a Swedish embassy in the UK? Why was bail denied when he surrendered and his lawyers had let the police know he would do so when the warrant was served? Finally, is the hand of the US the answer to these questions? Sweden is not the UK; the US can squash that tiny country. The chances of getting its hands on Assange from there are probably improved--and that may be the story.”
Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, focused on widespread rumors that there is a conspiracy between the U.K. and Sweden to extradite Assange to the United States.
She told us, “We’re deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea. The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents”
“If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA’s secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome,” she said, adding,
“The broader lesson of the WikiLeaks phenomenon is that President Obama should recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to.”
AMNESTY International played a more direct role than most. It said one of Wiki’s leaked diplomatic cables corroborates images released earlier this year by Amnesty International showing that the U.S. military carried out a missile strike in south Yemen in December 2009 that killed dozens of local civilians, including women and children.
The organization said that in the secret cable from January 2010 published by Wikileaks, Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh is reported as having assured U.S. General David Petraeus that his government would “continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.”
Human Rights First notes that the latest round of WikiLeaks documents is rousing discussion about U.S. diplomatic relations – but Human Rights First, along with Human Rights Watch, has raised the question of human rights activists who may be at danger if certain information is not redacted. Wikileaks says it has been especially careful in removing those names and, according to human rights activist Chip Pitts, “The US Government has now repeatedly admitted that contrary to their prior alarmist statements no one has come to harm as a result of the Wikileaks disclosures (to which I would add none is likely, since Wikileaks has followed the lead of the other major news outlets in redacting information that would actually endanger lives or national security).
Organizations dedicated to press freedom have been equally outspoken.
Reporters Without Borders says it “can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.”
They say that “any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.”
John Kampfner, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, associated with IFEX (the International Freedom of Expression Exchange), says, “Good journalists and editors should be capable of separating the awkward from the damaging. Information that could endanger life, either in the short term or as part of a longer-term operation, should remain secret.”
He predicts: “Once this latest flurry is over, prepare for the backlash. Mr. Assange’s industrial-scale leaking may lead to legislation in a number of countries that makes whistle-blowing harder than it already is. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Wikileaks revelations is not that they have happened, but it took someone as mercurial as Mr. Assange to be the conduit.”
He added, ”Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power.”
IFEX reiterated its call for “governments to improve the public's access to information, and only limit access if governments can demonstrate it would cause a specific and articulated harm. "The rules should not be used to hide other interests. Indeed, the existing U.S. rules on secrecy prohibit classifying information about crimes and as a means to prevent embarrassment.”
He believes “those rules are ignored far too often."
Chip Pitts, past president and current member of the Executive Committee of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told us, “Assange’s arrest now further complicates and escalates the situation: The ferocity with which the establishment has targeted Assange reveals its profound concern over the historic new trend toward global transparency Wikileaks exemplifies: if the big thieves can’t keep their thievery secret, what will they do?
He answers his question: “They thus strive with all their might to dramatically quash this upstart before others follow Assange’s example. Yet international as well as U.S. law is now clearly implicated, including international human rights law (for example the rights to free expression – including “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” -- and fair trial) and the particulars of the extradition treaty to which Assange will ultimately be subject (for example Sweden’s, which precludes extradition for “political” offenses).”
Pitts believes these actions “will succeed only if the rule of law continues to be eroded on the global level as it has been at the national level in recent years, with Kafkaesque labels of ‘terrorism’ or ‘espionage’, and invocations of ‘state secrecy’ and ‘military necessity’ being used to chill journalists and shield even the most egregious facts from coming to light – let alone being used to finally hold the high and mighty accountable for their crimes.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
