The case of Matt DeHart, a former U.S. drone pilot turned hacktivist, is as strange as it is disturbing. The 29-year-old was recently denied asylum in Canada, having fled there with his family after — he claims — he was drugged and tortured by agents of the FBI, who accused him of espionage and child pornography.
Prosecutors have shown they’re willing to say anything to convict a hacktivist, even if it means lying
Last week the Canadian Border Services Agency said he will be deported to the U.S. to stand trial “in very short order,” after a Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board ruling earlier this month denying his request for refugee status. He is being denied access to two thumb drives that he says contain evidence of illegal acts perpetrated by a U.S. government agency. Now after three unsuccessful attempts to gain political asylum, he fears that he and the files will be delivered to the very government he sought to escape.
“I cannot imagine any life in a country which has already tortured me,” Matt DeHart told reporter Adrian Humphreys, whose astonishing five-part series in Canada’s National Postdocuments the bizarre case. “Am I now to be given into the hands of my torturers?”
It’s tempting to dismiss DeHart’s claims based on their sheer outlandishness and his equally outlandish attempts to defect to Russia and Venezuela, which he now says he regrets. But given President Barack Obama’s administration’s penchant for punishing hacktivists and whistleblowers, a disturbing decades-long trend of prosecutorial misconduct and the now established fact that the U.S. has, as Obama put it, “tortured some folks,” it’s clear that the U.S. government’s claims in this case warrant even more skepticism.
Matt DeHart
According to government documents, Matt DeHart admitted during an interrogation to becoming involved with a spy ring during his time as a drone pilot, agreeing to broker the sale of military secrets for up to $100,000 per month through a Russian agent in Canada. But he claims he was being drugged and tortured and simply made the story up.
“I would have told them anything,” he told The National Post of his encounter with the FBI agents, during which he was denied a lawyer. “Information that is derived from torture — to use it against somebody is ridiculous. It’s garbage. I already said it’s not true.”
He testified that the agents admitted the child porn charges were fabricated — a ruse to enable investigation into his involvement with the nebulous hacktivist collective Anonymous. He says the investigation stems from a file he uploaded twice to a hidden website, hosted on the anonymous Tor network from a server in his parents’ house. DeHart claims it contained evidence of government wrongdoing, “an FBI investigation into the [CIA’s] practices.” Screen shots of the WikiLeaks website found on his computer suggest he intended to send the file to the whistleblowing organization.
After the asylum ruling earlier this month, three courts — two in the U.S. and one in Canada — have expressed strong doubts about the child pornography charges that triggered a search warrant onMatt DeHart’s parents’ home in the U.S. Those accusations date to 2008 and stemmed from his association with two teenagers while playing the online game “World of Warcraft,” one of whom was also involved with Anonymous; the charges were ultimately not proved.
After DeHart was arrested while crossing from Canada to the U.S. in 2010, a judge in Bangor, Maine, found it odd that prosecutors were suddenly citing the two-year-old porn accusations and that police hadn’t analyzed Matt DeHart computers for illicit files seven months after they were seized. A judge in Tennessee, where Matt DeHart ‘s family lived before moving to Canada, admitted that “the weight of the evidence is not as firm as I thought it was.” And most recently, the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board concluded there was “no credible or trustworthy evidence” that DeHart had solicited child porn.
Prosecutorial misconduct helps the government railroad journalists, whistleblowers, hacktivists and any who dare to speak truth to power.
To be sure, Matt DeHart strange behavior throughout this ordeal doesn’t place him in a particularly flattering light. But it’s worth noting that these kinds of serious accusations are often made in cases against hacktivists and whistleblowers, helping place them in the government’s crosshairs and paint them as nefarious even when the accusations are easily disproved.
Barrett Brown, a journalist who investigated links between the U.S. government and private intelligence contractors, had all manner of ridiculous false accusations thrown at him before being sentenced last month to five and a half years in prison. He was initially charged for the innocuous act of copying and pasting a hyperlink to a public file stolen by Anonymous from one chat room into another. The charge was dropped, but the linking was still used to increase the length of his sentence, despite the fact that prosecutors had no evidence Brown had looked at the file or even known what was in it.
At one point, prosecutors claimed that Brown conspired with members of Anonymous to overthrow the U.S. government. They also accused him of participating in “SWATting,” the practice of making fake 911 calls to harass people in their homes, and even of plotting with another journalist to hack the Bahraini government. Not one of these claims was supported by the voluminous collection of chat logs that the government provided as evidence. Nor did additional logs obtained by The Daily Dot, which the prosecution had withheld under seal.
Brown was not entirely without fault in the case, having obstructed a search warrant and posted a YouTube video threatening an FBI agent in response to the seizure of his laptops. But in retrospect, it seems clear the impetus for the case was that the government saw Brown’s investigations as a threat and would say anything to guarantee his conviction, even if that meant knowingly making false statements. As Brown put it during his allocution, “This is not the rule of law … It is the rule of law enforcement.”
Close scrutiny
What can we expect from the Matt DeHart case if this is the prosecutorial legacy it follows?
As The New York Times editorial board recently noted, defendants have no recourse when police and prosecutors lie, cheat and conceal evidence in the courtroom, leading to what one federal judge has described (PDF) as a national epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct. Sometimes it leads to wrongful convictions. Other times, as in Brown’s case, it helps the government railroad journalists, whistleblowers, hacktivists and any who dare to speak truth to power.
Remember Aaron Swartz, an information activist who prosecutors pursued vigorously for the act of downloading too many academic articles from an MIT library? Much like in Brown’s case, prosecutors were accused of withholding evidence and coercing Swartz into taking a guilty plea. Swartz committed suicide in 2013 amid mounting legal costs and the possibility of up to 35 years in prison, triggering the DeHarts’ decision to flee the country.
“Aaron Swartz had very similar psychological makeup, similar age, same circumstances as Matt DeHart,” DeHart’s father, Paul DeHart, a retired U.S. Air Force major, told The National Post. “I do not want to wake up one day and find my son hanging from a rope in the garage of our house. And I have noplace to go to bring this to anyone’s attention.”
With Matt DeHart’s attempted defections and other erratic behavior, it’s admittedly difficult to determine where his true intentions lie. But the government’s actions against him have been just as sketchy, if not more so. His claims must be taken seriously, and his case should be closely scrutinized, lest another potential whistleblower fall prey to the state’s merciless war on leaks.
by Joshua Kopstein, a cyberculture journalist and researcher from New York City. His work focuses on Internet law and disorder, surveillance and government secrecy.
John Young Architect, Cryptologist, Leak Facilitator, Cryptome.org Founder
John Young is a wise, seasoned, and ‘angry’ citizen determined to expose corruption and abhorrent secrecy. He is currently living in New York, doing architectural work for some of the most powerful members of the political establishment that he has sworn to attack. “It’s an easy way to make money in New York, to do corrupt work,” he says with a shrug.
Young on .gov tactics:
“Assassination Politics,” is what Young described as “an imaginative and sophisticated prospective for improving governmental accountability by way of a scheme for anonymous, untraceable political assassination.”
Interesting, Young disclosed the fact on Cryptome in 2000:
“My father-in-law was a longtime career officer in the Central Intelligence Agency, one of its earliest members, and chief of station in several countries…. He’s not talking to Cryptome, and that’s regrettable, for I believe such knowledgeable persons should disclose everything they know about the global culture of secret intelligence and its profound effects – to better inform citizens on the true way their governments function.”
Chelsea “Bradley” Manning Chelsea Elizabeth Manning is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of classified documents ever leaked to the public.Chelsea Elizabeth Manning is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of classified documents ever leaked to the public.Chelsea Elizabeth Manning is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of classified documents ever leaked to the public.Chelsea “Bradley” Manning Chelsea Elizabeth Manning is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of classified documents ever leaked to the public.Chelsea Elizabeth Manning is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of classified documents ever leaked to the public.Chelsea Elizabeth Manning is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of classified documents ever leaked to the public.Chelsea “Bradley” Manning Chelsea Elizabeth Manning is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of classified documents ever leaked to the public.Chelsea Elizabeth Manning is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of classified documents ever leaked to the public.Chelsea Elizabeth Manning is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of classified documents ever leaked to the public.
Julian Assange Julian Paul Assange is an Australian publisher and journalist. He is known as the editor-in-chief of the website WikiLeaks, which he co-founded in 2006 after an earlier career in hacking and programming.Julian Paul Assange is an Australian publisher and journalist. He is known as the editor-in-chief of the website WikiLeaks, which he co-founded in 2006 after an earlier career in hacking and programming.Julian Paul Assange is an Australian publisher and journalist. He is known as the editor-in-chief of the website WikiLeaks, which he co-founded in 2006 after an earlier career in hacking and programming.Julian Assange Julian Paul Assange is an Australian publisher and journalist. He is known as the editor-in-chief of the website WikiLeaks, which he co-founded in 2006 after an earlier career in hacking and programming.Julian Paul Assange is an Australian publisher and journalist. He is known as the editor-in-chief of the website WikiLeaks, which he co-founded in 2006 after an earlier career in hacking and programming.Julian Paul Assange is an Australian publisher and journalist. He is known as the editor-in-chief of the website WikiLeaks, which he co-founded in 2006 after an earlier career in hacking and programming.Julian Assange Julian Paul Assange is an Australian publisher and journalist. He is known as the editor-in-chief of the website WikiLeaks, which he co-founded in 2006 after an earlier career in hacking and programming.Julian Paul Assange is an Australian publisher and journalist. He is known as the editor-in-chief of the website WikiLeaks, which he co-founded in 2006 after an earlier career in hacking and programming.Julian Paul Assange is an Australian publisher and journalist. He is known as the editor-in-chief of the website WikiLeaks, which he co-founded in 2006 after an earlier career in hacking and programming.
Just a few years ago he was doing well; as a trained Intelligence Analyst in the US Air National Guard he looked forward to a stable and glamorous career at the center of action, living inside a virtual videogame and fighting America’s enemies via drones. It was a heady combination of gamer geek dreams and the aspirations of a good boy who’d grown up in a military family, following his parents’ path to public service.
Now he sits in a cell in a foreign country, far from his Indiana roots, suffering from PTSD and recovering from two apparent suicide attempts. The last one by diving headfirst onto a concrete floor from a top bunk bed. He’s struggling hard to stay in that cell, too; or at least, never to return to the land of his birth, the land he once served so proudly.
In a series of clipped, yet eloquent, emails Major Paul DeHart, Matt’s father, talked to us about the struggles his family have been through in the days since. “No prison is a good prison. Depriving any human being much less one who has grown up under western law which in theory at least values human dignity and freedom above most things is punishment enough. I will say compared to the way human beings in general and prisoners specifically are treated in any US prison system, state or federal, Canadian prisoners seem to be treated as human beings with at least the potential for rehabilitation.”
“But, the US approach to warehousing prisoners and exploiting them as resources for labour and prison-industrial-complex businesses is no different than the way the US approaches old people in nursing homes or labour in general. From a corporatist standpoint, a human resource which is no longer productive is no longer of any value. The concept of intrinsic human value seems to have been forgotten.”
On his son’s complex situation and appeal for sanctuary: “It’s simple in our book. He was tortured by the US. That is a violation of international law. Does anyone doubt any more that the US tortures people? If they have done it overseas to supposed enemies – why not to their own citizens? Why is the US Senate report in CIA torture still not released. You figure it out. Along those lines – I reference what happened to Canadian citizen [Maher] Arar.”
As Matt himself explained to the National Post, “It’s not that I’m not patriotic — I am. I voted for Bush. My family is military, pretty gung ho. But everything has changed.”
The DeHart case (as explained in the masterful five-part National Post chronicle) is neither straightforward nor at first glance tremendously sympathetic. Of his own volition he walked into the Russian Embassy in Washington, DC. What happened there depends on which version of the stories he’s told you believe. Either he was there to look for work and a new start, having lost faith in the US, or he was there to mislead them about drone technology, deliberately handing them misinformation to protect the country he loved. But what does this have to do with the child pornography charges against him, the only charges which have been filed? And if he’s wanted on child pornography charges, why did the FBI interrogate him as part of an espionage investigation, as the documentation shows?
And what does this have to do with Anonymous?
It all started with Chanology. According to statements DeHart gave Adrian Humphreys of the National Post, he participated in Project Chanology, the original “moralfag” action which pitted Anonymous against the Church of Scientology. There were many aspects to the operation, but the most famous was the adoption of the Guy Fawkes mask, since become inextricably associated with the hacktivist collective. The statements DeHart gave were corroborated by operation founder Gregg Housh, although he could not specifically identify participants, having known them only via pseudonyms.
Chanology was DeHart’s first taste of activism, and he liked it. Getting deeper into the hacktivist scene, he eventually ran a server on which some files which may or may not have been destined for WikiLeaks resided.
His American lawer Tor Ekeland told us via email, “This whole matter revolves around a file that appeared in the fall of 2009 on a TOR server Matt was a co-sys admin. People speculate that it was enroute to Wikileaks, although I have not seen any confirmation of this fact. The file was unencrypted for the first two days on the server. According to published reports, it’s an FBI investigative file of domestic criminal activity by the CIA.”
Then came the raid.
That was 2010. No malware and no such mystery file was found on DeHart’s computer equipment; he’d long since deleted the file, which had been uploaded to the server by someone else.
“I opened the door and it was the police task force. Your stomach drops and your heart beats like crazy. It takes you by surprise, even though I had nothing to hide once the server was destroyed…
I was shook up,” Matt said. “I don’t know everything they took, but I know they took everything. After they had left I looked at the search warrant which was left on the couch. It was a generic warrant from the Memphis FBI field office and it said they were searching for child pornography.”
That was when he started to lose faith. Not too long after that he visited the Russian and Venezuelan embassies, looking for the future he could no longer see himself having in the USA. He didn’t find it there and decided to take the same route once taken by escaped slaves, the Underground Railway to the free environs of Canada.
Part of the reasoning, as his father told Humphreys, was that if there was any hold-up with the passport, they’d know the child porn incident wasn’t over. There was no problem with the passport. He left, signed up for a French Immersion course which to his chagrin didn’t take, then enrolled in technical college in scenic Prince Edward Island, intending to study welding. “I figured I’d try something that had nothing to do with computers. I felt good going to Canada,” he explained to the National Post.
All was going well, but in order to start school he needed a student visa, which he had to obtain from his home country.
You see this coming, don’t you?
He bussed across the St Croix river to the American side, where he spent the night at a hotel and took care of the paperwork. Then he headed back to Canada. Presenting his passport at the border, he anticipated no issues. The guard scanned it, checked the computer, scanned it again, went into an office to check something, and suddenly all hell broke loose.
While two guards threw themselves in front of the exit, blocking it, DeHart was cuffed and plopped in a chair. Soon he was tumbled into the back of a Border Patrol vehicle which was driven by an FBI agent and taken to an ICE detention center, where he was refused a lawyer and detained.
DeHart says he was strapped into a lab chair and drugged with an IV drip, before being aggressively questioned for hours. He was shown a new criminal complaint, charging him with soliciting child pornography; it was written that very day.
His father explained some anomalies. “We have repeatedly asked in court in the US for actual transcripts of his interrogations and have been told there are no audio or video records. Yeah right. Two agents are flown out from the national security section in DC to interrogate Matt and there are no records. Hmmm.”
He was transferred from the ICE detention center to another holding facility, where he collapsed and was taken to hospital, where the doctors determined him to be in a paranoid state, claiming persecution by the FBI. His symptoms were consistent with “drug induced psychosis” according to medical personnel.
Department of Justice documents show that DeHart was not actually detained on child porn charges; he was detained relating to an issue of national security/espionage. And he remained detained for months, until a judge added up the inconsistencies in the case, found DeHart a credible witness and not a flight risk, and ordered that he be released with a monitoring bracelet and curfew.
On November 5, Guy Fawkes Day, Million Mask March day, Matt DeHart filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him.
On April 2 of the next year, he and his family fled, driving north almost a full day and night to a border station in Fort Francis, Ontario, where they claimed refugee status and requested asylum from the Canadian government. Ekeland explained, “He and his family are seeking refugee status in Canada based on the fact that Matt was tortured by the FBI and that he cannot get a fair trial in the U.S.”
Paul DeHart said, “We came to Canada to seek protection from the US under international law. We know the tremendous courage it would take any Canadian official to stand up to Canada’s closest ally and biggest trading partner. However, it has been done before. In my generation Canada welcomed war protesters who disobeyed draft laws in the US and came to Canada where tens of thousands of them were granted immigrant status and protected.” In more recent, more Conservative times, however, the Canadian government has been rounding up and repatriating (ie returning to the US) AWOL American soldiers.
The next day the Canadian government from whom they were seeking aid charged Matt with espionage against Canada.
“There are Americans who try to sneak across the Canadian border to flee US law enforcement all the time,’” said Paul DeHart. CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] I’m sure keeps stats. We did not sneak anywhere. We reported to a CBSA office and declared ourselves as asylum seekers under the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT). Matt was not detained by Canadian officials until the following day when a US Judge issued an arrest warrant for failing to appear at a schedule court hearing.”
And this, along with the still-unresolved child pornography charges, is why Matt DeHart has spent the last year in Canadian jail cells. At one point he won limited release, and was reunited with his family, but when the family moved to a different apartment Matt notified his corrections officer of the move in an incorrect manner: by notifying the company in charge of his electronic monitor, who then notified the officer. His father explained, “Someone in the CBSA made a decision to have him rearrested on a
reporting technicality which had nothing to do with flight risk or danger to the community and forfeit the $10,000 bond we put up. Money by the way we could not afford to lose.” He remains in custody. Rallies for his release have been unsuccessful, if high-profile.
Paul DeHart told us, “You should thank God as Canadians you seem to still have a mature and unbiased judiciary. The judge who reviewed Matt’s bond release in Sept 2013, after CBSA challenged it in court, wrote a very well-supported opinion which basically said in paraphrase – in Canada someone is innocent until proven guilty. If her 13-page opinion is indicative of the quality of
Canadian judges, then I’d say at least judicially, Canadians are in good hands.”
“We are awaiting two decisions by the Immigration and Refugee Board. First, we await the admissibility decision for Matt. He is opposed by the govt for the charges in TN. The final submissions were sent in middle of August. A negative decision will start a time clock on a shortened process to have Matt sent back to the US. Actually, it’s my understanding that he would just have to be deported from Canada. Theoretically it doesn’t have to be back to the US, but where else would he be sent?”
“The other decision is whether as a family we qualify under for protection from the Canadian government. Final submission for that hearing are due this month. No telling how long either decision will take. Considering the unusual nature of our claim, we suspect the Canadian government will be sure to make a very thorough examination of each and have detailed rationale for the decisions.” This is going to involve a lot of lawyers, though, and they are not inexpensive, particularly for a couple of new immigrants who left behind established careers. “The [child porn] case in Tennessee is suspended until/unless Matt returns to the US as we understand it.”
The governments in question don’t appear to be in any rush. Major DeHart raises an interesting question: extradition. “After being in Canada since April 2013, a year and a half, there has been no extradition request from the US. Since these are relatively routine it raises the question – why not?”
We asked DeHart about the extent to which the Canadian and US governments were cooperating on the case. “Who knows?” he replied. “Clearly the questions Matt was asked by both CSIS [Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the “Canadian FBI”] and the War Crimes unit of CBSA were focused on events in the US which had nothing to do with child pornography. Questions Leann and I were asked at the admissibility hearing by CBSA hearings officers seemed to have come directly from the US. And, that makes sense since US border personnel are on Canadian soil and work closely with CBSA.”
Their old government seems content to leave the entire family in the hands of the Canadians, despite maintaining an apparent interest in watching events unfold. “We have not been contacted by anyone from the US government since we came to Canada,” Paul DeHart told us. “I will say that the day after we crossed the border in Ft. Frances we noticed at least a dozen US Homeland Security vehicles parked in that relatively small town. I do know we did not feel safe from the US there.” As a former NSA employee, DeHart is well-equipped to identify HS vehicles.
On September 12 DeHart’s US attorney Tor Ekeland created an online fundraiser to cover his legal expenses. He chose the site GoFundMe, which often works with Anonymous fundraisers.
That same day, the fundraiser was shut down.
“We got an email from GoFundMe saying we’d violated their Terms of Service, and that our account was being terminated,” Ekelund told me via email. “When we asked for explanation we got none. By the time we’d received the email the account had already been deleted.”
Paul DeHart said, “Well, you can draw your own conclusions. Supposedly the site was taken down for a violation of terms of service. But, since it was started and run by a law firm, that makes little sense.”
Not wasting any time, Ekeland immediately rebuilt the fundraiser on Canadian site Fundrazr, which also hosts Julian Assange’s personal fundraiser. “We had the Fundrazr up in an hour or two, most of the time which was spent on looking at alternatives sites. It took about 15 minutes to actually get it up and running again. It stands at $550 of a $10,000 goal.
“No money was lost. Gofundme sent us everything. I really don’t focus on fundraising, and I usually go thousands of dollars out of pocket on the cases I have that are like this. I never make money of these types of cases, and I’m certainly not doing it for the money.”
The future is uncertain, obscured in a blizzard of paperwork, allegations, missing files, and, most recently, very specific publication bans (which we are probably breaking by reporting this). There are two powerful, often collusive, governments
Ekeland explained, “As of this writing, the U.S. government has not taken any action to extradite Matt. They will not try him in absentia.”
Paul DeHart sums it up. “Unless you have spent a large part of your adult life serving in the S military you would have a hard time understanding what an absolutely gut-wrenching, traumatic experience it is to have to fill out a basis of claim form for asylum against the country you love and served. But there is no excuse for what was done to our son, and no one in the US seemed to care about that.”
“It is our intention to remain in Canada and live out the rest of our lives in peace. If we are granted status we would never be allowed to return to the country of our birth. My own mother passed away in May 2013 after we came here. I was unable to attend her funeral.”
“If we are permitted to remain in Canada and Matt is allowed free to pursue life again, then our lives will resume. We will work, live, and make a new life in Canada. We have no ambitions beyond this: to live free from the fear of the US government. Imagine knowing that your head is in the sights of a sniper some 2 miles away. You know that at any moment a trigger can be pulled sending a 50 calibre bullet into your skull and exploding it. I know that’s graphic and perhaps hyperbole, but that is what it
feels like to know that our lives are in the sights of the most powerful government on earth.”
“You wonder if this is the day someone pulls the trigger.”
NOTE: Matt’s job description has been corrected. He was originally reported to be a drone pilot, but was actually an Intelligence Analyst. His father writes, “His job in the Air National Guard was equivalent to PFC Manning’s in the Army.”
An Interview with Police Militarization Expert Radley Balko:How Cops Became Soldiers
Non-Violent Marijuana Arrests surpass Violent Crime Arrests- Prison Industry Profits Running Wild! GMO’s making it into ‘Natural’ vitamins & supplements
Monsanto (the Fox) buys Beelogics (The Henhouse). Nature in jeopardy of getting Hi-jacked!
Dick Cheney finally admits he lied on 9/11… kind of.
US Expat Taxes: The IRS Gets You at Passport Renewal Time
WikiLeaks: US ‘to call bin Laden raid Navy Seal to testify against Bradley Manning’ UPDATE: Judge strikes down dismiss over trial delay says ‘reasonable’
The Al-Qaida Papers – Drones
The FBI is inside Anonymous: Hacker Sabu has sentencing delayed again for helping the feds
FBI employees, entrusted with stopping computer crimes, commit them too
Obama Admin Aims Keyboard Commandos at Gun Control
Net providers begin warning of illegal downloads
A Police State ‘Example’ being set, with Raw Milk drinkers…
Anonymous Hacktivists: ‘Bigger and Stronger Than Ever’
NSA’s Marching Orders to Congress: Deceive the Public, Praise NSA Effusively
Next generation of airport scanners will scan every single molecule in your body
Review: Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet by Julian Assange with Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Müller-Maguhn and Jérémie Zimmermann. OR Books, New York, 2012, 186 pages, Paper.
Sentry System Combines a Human Brain with Computer Vision
TSA chief will be a ‘no show’ at congressional hearing
West Bank and East Jerusalem buses are already segregated
Journalists Harassed By Airport Officials For Passing Out TSA Body Scanner Opt Out Flyers – but a Sheriff Steps in to Defend rights!
BRADLEY MANNING UPDATE:Bradley Manning is being punished – and tortured – for a crime that amounts to believing one’s highest duty is to the American people and not the American government
Walmart CEOs Concealed Evidence Of Vast Bribery Scandal
Jeremy Scahill on Obama’s War Machine, American Assassinations & Journalism
WikiLeaks to Release Over 100 Secret Documents on Detention Policies
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets
PlayStation ‘master key’ leaked online, Tiny Drones Work Together!
Jester Update: th3j35t3r ‘patriot hacker’ Promotes the Military Industrial Complex & Al-CIA-duh. FYI, it’s a group account, one of them exposed himself to be Tom Ryan, of Provide Security. (‘Terrorist Hackers’ are good for InfoSec biz)
Hacktivists Advocate: Meet The Lawyer Who Defends Anonymous
We’re as harmless or dangerous as anyone else. Chances are that we’re less dangerous because we don’t want to screw you all over. #Anonymous
The only remedy for the abuse of Bradley Manning and the government’s violation of the law is dismissal of all charges.
Every time I attend a Bradley Manning hearing the prosecutors show their outrageous disrespect for the law, demonstrate they cannot be trusted and that this prosecution should not proceed.
Beginning on November 27, the defense will argue a long-delayed motion to dismiss for unlawful pretrial punishment. In a moment of high drama, Bradley is likely to testify about his nine months in solitary confinement during the argument of this motion.
Prosecutors Are Caught Hiding More than One Thousand Emails about Manning’s Confinement
The most recent reason for the delay in the hearing was the government was caught hiding 1,374 emails relevant to the confinement of Bradley Manning. Attorney David Coombs had requested all documents relevant to Manning’s confinement at Quantico but did not receive any of the emails. Hours before the deadline for filing the motion to dismiss the Government sent him 84 emails from Quantico that it said were “obviously material to the defense.” They did not mention the existence of 1,290 other emails relating to Manning’s confinement.
Coombs, based on prior experience with the prosecution team, was suspicious. The language “obviously material to the defense” was tortured. Were there other documents that were material to the defense? The law requires the government to provide all material information. Two government prosecutors responded that the 84 emails were all there was. Coombs was still suspicious and decided to file a motion with the court on the matter. At that point the prosecution admitted there were a total of 1,374 emails, but claimed only 84 were discoverable.
Coombs kept pushing and on the first day of the hearing last week the government provided him with a disc containing approximately 600 emails. The prosecutors gave no explanation as to how they jumped from 84 to 600 discoverable emails, even though Coombs asked how that occurred. Now there are 700 emails in dispute, and Judge Denise Lind granted Coombs’ motion to have her review those to determine if they’re discoverable.
What did the emails contain? Well, we don’t know yet what surprises are in the 600 given to Coombs during the hearing, but the 84 contained a blockbuster. They revealed that the decision to hold Manning in tortuous solitary confinement conditions was not made because of Manning’s behavior at Quantico, not made because of the recommendations of the prison psychologists or psychiatrists, not made by the brig commander, not even made by the Commander at Quantico – but made by a three-star general in the Pentagon.
Who was the general in charge of Manning’s confinement?
Lieutenant General George Flynn, who was serving as the Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at the time, ordered Manning’s solitary confinement.
Flynn is a career officer who has been climbing the ladder in the military since 1975. There are only 60 three-star generals in the entire U.S. Marine Corps. Flynn is in the top echelon of Marine officers. Flynn was nominated for appointment by the President under the advice of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as confirmed via majority vote by the Senate. Thus, this position, in addition to being an important military position, is one that requires political skill as well.
Among the positions he has recently held are Chief of Staff and Director, Command Support Center, United States Special Operations Command (2004-2006). Commanding General, Training and Education Command (2006-2007). Deputy Commanding General Multi-National Corps-Iraq (2008), Director for Joint Force Development, The Joint Staff J-7 (2011-). This includes positions he served in during the time documented by Manning’s alleged release.
During Flynn’s time at the U.S. Special Ops command, growing pains were reported as they were developing plans to have an expanded and more complex role against terrorism, working more closely with the CIA. In 2005’s Operation Red Wing, under his command, four Navy SEALs were pinned down in a firefight and radioed for help. A Chinook helicopter, carrying 16 service members, responded but was shot down. All members of the rescue team and three of four SEALs on the ground died. It was the worst loss of life in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001.
The fact that an officer who was working so closely with the CIA was making the decisions about Manning’s incarceration raises questions about the purpose of Manning’s abusive confinement. Even before knowing Lt. Gen. Flynn was in charge, many commentators believed Manning was tortured in an effort to break him so he would plead guilty and testify against Julian Assange. Now that we know a three-star general at the Pentagon was making the decisions, these suspicions have much greater credibility.
Who knows what will be uncovered in the 600 emails that have been provided and the remaining 700 in dispute? It already sounds like Manning’s defense needs to broaden its request to all communications involving Lt. Gen. Flynn about Manning, including with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of Defense and the White House. We know that the White House in the Bush Administration was approving every step of the torture-interrogation of high profile suspects, so it seems likely that aggressive punishment of a U.S. soldier would need White House approval. The Manning case is high profile, and it is hard to believe Lt. Gen. Flynn would risk his career by torturing a soldier without approval from political leaders at the Pentagon and White House.
And Manning was kept in torturous conditions. Not only was he held in solitary for nine months, but he was also mistreated throughout that time. Manning’s confinement is detailed in the 109 page motion to dismiss filed by David Coombs. Manning was held in a windowless 6-by-8 cell in which he was not allowed to have any personal items. He was awakened at 5:00 AM and required to stay awake until 10 PM. Among the conditions of his confinement were as follows:
– He was not allowed to exercise in the cell.
– He was not permitted to lie down on his rack during the duty day.
– He was not permitted to lean his back against the cell wall; he had to sit upright on his rack without any back support.
– Manning was subjected to constant monitoring; the Brig guards were required to check on him every five minutes by asking him some variation of, “are you okay?” Manning was required to verbally respond in some affirmative manner. Guards were required to make notations every five minutes in a logbook.
– Some lights would remain on all night. At night, if the guards could not see him clearly, because he had a blanket over his head or he was curled up towards the wall, they would wake Manning in order to ensure that he was okay.
– Manning was only given a mattress and when he tried to fold the mattress to make a pillow Brig officials took it away and gave him a suicide mattress with a built-in pillow, only a couple of inches high, not really any better than sleeping on a flat mattress. Manning was not permitted regular sheets or blankets. Instead he was provided with a tear-proof security blanket. This blanket was extremely coarse and irritated Manning’s skin causing rashes and carpet burns. The blanket did not keep Manning warm due to its stiffness, did not contour to his body or retain heat.
– Manning was required to receive each of his meals alone in his cell. He was only permitted to eat with a spoon.
– Whenever Manning was moved outside his cell, he was shackled with metal hand and leg restraints and accompanied by at least two guards; the entire facility was locked down.
– He was not allowed to speak to other inmates and if he attempted to do so was stopped.
– Manning was permitted only 20 minutes of “sunshine call.” Aside from a 3-5 minute shower, this would be the only time he would regularly spend outside his cell. During this sunshine call, he would be brought to a small concrete yard and permitted to walk around the yard in hand and leg shackles, while being accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side (the guard would have his hand on Manning’s back). Two to three other guards would also be present observing Manning while he walked in figure-eights. He was not permitted to sit down or stay stationary.
After a protest in support of Manning outside of Quantico his conditons got worse. Guards harassed him to the point of bringing on a panic attack. He was placed on suicide watch and had his clothes taken away from him at night, from March 3, 2011, through March 7, 2011, he was forced to stand outside his cell naked during morning inspection.
How involved was Lt. Gen. Flynn in determining these unjustifiable conditions of confinement? During the last hearing, Coombs disclosed that Flynn was given detailed reports of minor details – he was even notified when Coombs visited his client. Further, the commander at Quantico said in one email that all decisions to relax confinement needed to be approved by Flynn. This was known up and down the chain of command at Quantico.
The Quantico command had been told what they needed to do, as the Coombs motion states: “keep PFC Manning subjected to the most rigorous conditions possible. So no matter what the psychiatrists recommended, week-after-week, month-after-month, nothing ever changed because everyone at the Brig had their marching orders from [redacted] who in turn had his marching orders from someone higher up in the chain of command.”
The psychiatrist, who was originally a Brig psychiatrist and later appointed to the Defense team, expressed extreme frustration about the “bizarre” circumstances at Quantico saying: “treating this is so … it’s just bizarre all the way around. I’m just surprised that they would become so intrusive because I’d be concerned about what that looks like later on. And they’ve not seemed to have any qualms at all about reaching down so heavy handed. And when I’ve asked … and again, there’s no documentation . . . It’s not an interrogation, I don’t think. He’s not been adjudicated, so there’s a lot of risk to putting too many services out there when somebody is in this pretrial situation. . . . They’re supposed to be assumed innocent. What you’re supposed to be doing is protecting where they’re not incriminating themselves. So, I don’t know. It’s been a bizarre thing … I’ve never seen anything like it.”
Are these conditions acceptable under military law?
In United States v. Fricke, 53 M.J. 149, 155 (C.A.A.F. 2000) the accused alleged that he was placed in solitary confinement for an extended period of time because prison officials were attempting to “break him.” The court indicated that “coercing a confession is not a legitimate governmental objective.”
Indeed the only legitimate purposes are to ensure the accused’s presence at trial and the security of the facility. In 2006’s United States v. Crawford, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Services found a constitutional violation is established where “conditions [are] unreasonable or arbitrary in relation to both purposes” of “ensuring … presence for trial and the security needs of the confinement facility.” Manning was an exemplary inmate who never gave Brig officials reason to believe he was a flight risk, making these harsh conditions, controlled from the Pentagon, impossible to defend.
As the Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces wrote in United States v. Combs, “the courts will not tolerate egregious, intentional misconduct by command where there is no evidence of a legitimate, non-punitive objective for the conduct complained of . . ..” What was the “legitimate, non-punitive objective” of Manning not being able to lean against the wall while seated in his cell, lying down in his cell between 5 AM and 10 PM, exercising in his cell, being forced to stand naked to get his clothes back or being verbally checked every five minutes and waking him from his sleep to see if he was alright? The only purpose of these limitations was to punish, humiliate or break Manning. No doubt Lt. Gen. Flynn is well aware of how these stress techniques can break a person.
Any claim that these abusive conditions were to protect Manning is undermined by the well-known negative impact of solitary confinement. Numerous federal courts having taken note of the serious negative consequences of such confinement. The fact is the confinement facility officials were actually causing Manning psychological harm, not protecting him from harm. Finally, the fact that as soon as he was sent to Ft. Leavenworth his conditions changed virtually overnight, demonstrate the conditons at Quantico were unnecessary.
In multiple cases, military courts have found that dismissal of all charges is an appropriate remedy for pre-trial punishment. Not only was Manning’s pre-trial confinement punishment in violation of military law, in addition after a 14-month investigation, the U. N. Special Rapporteur on torture Juan Méndez formally accused the U.S. government of “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The motion to dismiss, and the hidden emails, highlights the prosecution’s continuous withholding of material information from the defense in violation of law. The prosecutors’ obfuscation is resulting in a delay of the court martial so that Manning’s trial will occur nearly 1,000 days after his confinement in violation of speedy trial requirements. It is getting harder and harder to see how any remedy other than dismissal of the charges for outrageous government conduct would serve justice.
Andrea Davison who risked her life to expose arms to Iraq and pedophillia in England and Wales has been wrongly convicted by the British Government.
Like activists and whistleblowers before her she was targeted by the State for political reasons. The State spent an estimated 1 millions pounds and 2.5 years pursuing an older lady, who even given what she was convicted of had harmed no-one at all. She is belived to have been providing intelligene to Julian Assanges network before she was arrested as the Mastermind in an international fraud early January 2010.
Claiming Andrea was the Head of a criminal network gave the Derby Police headed by DC Stephen Winnard the excuse to search her home in North Wales. This was a ploy to sieze from her thousands of documents on arms to Iraq and Iran and documents which name pedophiles in the police and the government. They also wanted to silence a lady who, working secretly with the press, had all but brought down the last Conservative Government.
The prosecution Barrister Felicity Gerry who claims to be a Human Rights Barrister set-up Andrea in collusion with Derby Police officers. It is believed that the Derby and Nottingham police blackmailed Gerry because of the Mark Kennedy Ratcliff power station case.
Gerry who knew that Mark Kennedy was an undercover cop lied to the Court. If it were not for undercover cop Mark Stone/Kennedy coming clean and admitting he had set up the Ratcliff Power Station Activists then all the innocent activists would have been convicted and jailed.
see Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345707/Undercover-policeman-Mark-Kennedy-Case-collapses-offers-evidence-defence.html
Felicity Gerry did not care what lies she told to get the activists convicted because she was already embroiled deeply in corruption and easily blackmailed. She lives in Bedford with her husband and three children and is known to be involved with paedophiles. How much the Derby police know about her activities is unclear but Gerry is often chosen to Defend paedophiles
A body was set-up to investigate the Mark Kennedy affair and her role . Gerry then lied to the commission saying she knew nothing about her witness Mark Kennedy being an undercover cop. If she had not lied she would have been given a long prison sentence.
So it was easy for the Derby Fraud Squad to blackmail Gerry into setting up the innocent older lady Andrea Davison.
The Solicitors Garstangs of London were appointed by the Court against Andrea’s will and they failed to call any of her defence witnesses or present her volumes evidence proving her innocence to the jury. Important evidence to prove her innocence had been seized by the Police and they failed to make disclosure of this. The jury were not told about the thousands of documents on arms to Iraq that were seized by the police or the numerous Human Rights abuses Andrea had suffered at the hands of the Police and the State.
In August of the year of her arrest in January 2010 her friend and neighbour ‘spy in a bag’ Gareth Williams was murdered in London by the same people who are out to silence Andrea.
Even after persecuting Andrea for nearly three years they could not find any evidence that she has caused anyone any loss, or had harmed anyone and there was no complainant. For example one of the crimes she received a 2 and a half year sentence for was stealing a passport from the passport office. This was her own passport which she paid for. The passport office had put a 6 instead of an O in her date of birth and she has not complained. How could a jury convict someone of theft for stealing their own passport? they should have realised the police were clutching at straws and had no real evidence against her if they were forced to charge her with stealing her own passport.
She is now seeking Political asylum the same as Julian Assange and believed to be in Ecuador or in the Embassy.
I escaped Palestine to come to a country the world believes has a just and fair legal system only to find it is a country of deep hypocrisy where the innocent are set-up by the State who have endless resources to silence those who tell the truth,
This article by Peter Eyre suggests that it is not only Julian Assange who is being heavily guarded after having sought refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy but rather, and more importantly, a woman named Andrea Davison.
Eyre writes:
Dr David Kelly and Andrea Davison have several things in common both were experts on Biological Weapons and both were involved in the arms that went to Iraq and WMD’s and both were whistleblowers.
In his article, Eyre makes the case that others are also making that the Assange Wikileaks revealations are less than stellar and in fact, it has been said by several sources that Assange is likely a CIA/Australian secret service/Mossad asset and not the hero and defender of whistleblowers that he has been depicted as.
Apparently, Ms. Davison has evidence of arms sales and weapons of mass destruction that were moved by the Brits from South Africa to Oman and then stolen…. And much more that according to Eyre would implicate Brown, Blair and other British government members in a vast conspiracy.
According to this evidence Ms. Davison:
She knows as much as the late Dr. David Kelly and in actual fact puts herself on par with him…..she also did many runs to Iraq and herself worked for the DTI Select Committee as an “Arms to Iraq” investigator and may have also worked for MI5/6…….and yes she would be considered as a “thorn in the side” to current and past leaders and their respective governments!!
Dr. David Kelly is widely thought to have been suicided to keep hin silent and so if this is true, and Davison has similar evidence, it is vital that she be allowed to testify in open court or at the very least have that evidence reach the major media with whatever further information it can provide on just how far this rabbit hole goes.
Peter Eyre was a recent guest on my radio show… And I will endeavor to have him on once again to discuss this and other background to the axis of power with regard to the City of London who he refers to as the “Crown Templar”.
It is fact that all of the above were all involved in the New World Order financial rape of not only this country but many others compliments of the Crown Templar that is housed in the City of London – the “True axis of evil” with its tentacles radiating out from the Rothschild’s and the Committee of 300 across the waters to Europe and the good old US of A.
Many Camelot readers will be familiar with our whistelblower [see Anglo Saxon Mission article here] who talks in detail about being present during City of London meetings where fates of nations were discussed like dominoes on a board. This is an area that needs further revealing and Eyre is clearly on that trail as an investigative journalist with inside information in that regard.
Wildcard Friday: Relevant News & Unravelling Reality and the Matrix of Deception. DARPA funding AI Robots, Banking Crisis Warnings, Julian Assange and the future of Whistleb-lowing, Molding Your Reality to what you Prefer, Ley Lines and their Connection to the Mysterious & Impossible Ancient Structures throughout History, Police State Red Flags with Imminent Martial Law? NDAA in USE! Reporting the Facts – You decide.
Major Developments in the Julian Assange Extradition Attempt by UK! Our Interview with Occupy News Network, Raid Recap, Asylum Announcement, World Reaction, UK Reaction, and how does this connect to TRAPWIRE?
The text below is translated from the official Spanish transcript of today’s press statement issued by Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño Aroca, explaining Ecuador’s decision to grant asylum to Julian Assange. Here is a backup text in case Ecuadorian govt. website goes down : backup 1, backup 2.
This translation was crowd-sourced with the help of @DUVFree, BCK, BM, and other anonymous volunteers. Thanks for your contribution!
Note: links inserted in brackets have been added by WLPress for reference
Declaration by the Government of the Republic of Ecuador on Julian Assange’s asylum application
Ecuadorian nationals show their support for Assange outside of the Embassy of Ecuador in London.
On June 19, 2012, the Australian national Mr. Julian Assange appeared at the premises of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to request that the Ecuadorean State provide him with diplomatic protection, thus invoking the existing Diplomatic Asylum rules. The applicant had made his asylum request based on his fear of eventual political persecution by a third country, the same country whom could use his extradition to the Kingdom of Sweden to enable an expedited subsequent extradition.
The Government of Ecuador, faithful to the asylum procedures and with the utmost attention to this case, has reviewed and evaluated all aspects of this case, particularly the arguments presented by Mr. Assange to support the fear he feels regarding this situation as a threat to his life, personal safety and freedoms.
It is important to note that Mr. Assange has taken the decision to seek asylum and protection of Ecuador over alleged allegations of “espionage and treason,” which “instigate fear of the possibility of being handed over to the United States of America by British, Swedish or Australian authorities,“ said Mr. Assange, since the USA is chasing him for releasing compromising information sensitive to the U.S. Government. The applicant mentions that he “is a victim of persecution in various countries, which is deduced not only from their ideas and actions, but of his work of publishing information which compromises the powerful, uncovers the truth and therefore exposes corruption and abuses of human rights of citizens around the world.”
Therefore, according to the applicant, the indictment for crimes of a political nature is the basis for his asylum request, because in his judgement he is facing a situation involving an imminent danger which he cannot escape. In order to assess his fear of possible political persecution, and that this persecution could end up becoming a situation which curtails and violates his rights, integrity, and could become a risk to his personal safety and freedom, the Government of Ecuador has considered the following:
Julian Assange is an award-winning communications professional internationally known for his struggles for freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in general;
Mr. Assange shared privileged documents and information generated by various sources that affected employees, countries and organizations with a global audience;
That there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that may endanger his safety, integrity, and even his life;
That, despite Ecuador’s diplomatic efforts, countries which have been asked togive adequate safeguards for the protection and safety for the life of Mr. Assange have refused to facilitate them;
That Ecuadorian authorities are certain of the possibility that Mr. Assange could be extradited to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity;
That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, it would be unlikely for Mr. Assange to receive a fair trial, and likely that he would be judged by special or military courts, where there is a high probability of suffering cruel and degrading treatment, and be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would violate his human rights;
That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defense;
Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights of Mr. Assange have been infringed upon during the investigation;
Ecuador has observed that Mr. Assange lacks the protection and assistance that should be received from the State of which he is a citizen;
That, following several public statements and diplomatic communications by officials from Britain, Sweden and the USA, it is inferred that these governments would not respect international conventions and treaties, and would give priority to domestic law, in violation of explicit rules of universal application and,
That, if Mr. Assange is remanded to custody in Sweden (as is customary in this country), a chain of events would begin that would prevent further protective measures from being taken to avoid possible extradition to a third country.
Thus, the Government of Ecuador believes that these arguments lend support to the fears of Julian Assange, and it believes that he may become a victim of political persecution, as a result of his dedicated defense of freedom of expression and freedom of press as well as his repudiation of the abuses of power in certain countries, and that these facts suggest that Mr. Assange could at any moment find himself in a situation likely to endanger life, safety or personal integrity. This fear has driven him to exercise the right to seek and receive asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the UK.
Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador clearly defines the right of asylum. Under this provision, the rights of asylum and refugee status are fully recognized in Ecuador in accordance with international law and instruments of human rights. According to this constitutional provision:
“Persons who find themselves in a situation of asylum and refuge shall enjoy special protection to ensure the full exercise of their rights. The State shall respect and ensure the principle of non-refoulement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement], and shall provide emergency legal and humanitarian assistance.”
Similarly, the right to asylum is enshrined in Article 4.7 of the Foreign Service Act of 2006 (Ley Orgánica del Servicio Exterior), which establishes the ability of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Integration of Ecuador to hear cases of diplomatic asylum, in accordance with laws, treaties, and international norms and laws.
It should be stressed that our country has stood out in recent years to accommodate a large number of people who have applied for territorial asylum or refugee status, having unconditionally respected the principle of non-refoulement and non-discrimination, while it has taken steps to provide refugee status in an expeditious manner, taking into account the circumstances of applicants, mostly Colombians fleeing armed conflicts in their own country. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has praised Ecuador’s refugee policy, and highlighted the important fact that the country has not confined these people to camps, but has integrated them into Ecuadorian society, with full enjoyment of their human and natural rights.
Ecuador places the right of asylum in the category of universal human rights and beliefs, therefore, that the effective implementation of this right requires international cooperation that our countries can provide, without which it would be fruitless, and the institution would be totally ineffective. For these reasons, and recalling the obligation of all States to assist in the protection and promotion of human rights as provided by the United Nations Charter, we invite the British Government to lend its assistance in achieving this purpose.
To that effect, the state of Ecuador can confirm, following analysis of the legal institutions related to asylum, that the foundation of these rights has set out fundamental principles of general international law, the same as for its universal scope and importance, because of its consistance with the general interest of the entire international community, and full recognition by all states. These principles, which are set forth in various international instruments are as follows:
a) Asylum in all its forms is a fundamental human right creating obligations erga omnes, ie “for all” states.
b) Diplomatic asylum, refuge (or territorial asylum), and the right not to be extradited, expelled, delivered or transferred, are comparable human rights, since they are based on the same principles of human protection: non-refoulement and non-discrimination without any adverse distinction based on race, color, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status or any other similar criteria.
c) All these forms of protection are governed by the principles pro person (i.e. more favorable to the individual), equality, universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependence.
d) The protection occurs when the State granting asylum, required refuge, or powers of protection, consider that there is a risk or fear that the protected person may be a victim of political persecution, or is charged with political offenses.
e) The State granting asylum qualifies the causes of asylum and extradition case, weigh the evidence.
f) No matter which of its forms or modality, asylum always has the same cause and lawful object, i.e. political persecution, which makes it permissible, and to safeguard the life, personal safety and freedom of the protected person, which is its legitimately intended purpose.
g) The right of asylum is a fundamental human right, therefore, belongs to jus cogens, i.e. the system of mandatory rules of law recognized by the international community as a whole, for which no derogation is permitted, making null all treaties and provisions of international law which oppose it.
h) In cases not covered by existing law, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience, or are under the protection and rules of the principles of jus gentium [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_gentium] derived from established customs, the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience [http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument].
i) The lack of international agreement or domestic legislation of States cannot legitimately be invoked to limit, impair or deny the right to asylum.
j) The rules and principles governing the rights to asylum or refuge, no extradition, no handing over, no expulsion and no transfer are convergent, to the extent necessary to enhance the protection and provide it with maximum efficiency. In this sense, they are complementary to the international human rights law, the right of asylum and refugee law, and humanitarian law.
k) The rights of protection of the human being are based on ethical principles and universally accepted values and therefore have a humanistic, social, solidaric, peaceful and humanitarian character.
l) All States have a duty to promote the progressive development of international human rights through effective national and international action.
Ecuador has judged that the laws applicable to the asylum case of Mr. Julian Assange comprise the entire set of principles, standards, mechanisms and procedures provided for international human rights instruments (whether regional or universal), which include among their provisions the right to seek, receive and enjoy asylum for political reasons, the conventions governing the right of asylum and refugee law, and which recognize the right not to be delivered, returned, or expelled when credible fear of political persecution exists; conventions governing extradition law recognize the right not to be extradited when this measure covers political persecution, and conventions governing humanitarian law, recognize the right not to be transferred when there is a risk of political persecution. All these forms of asylum and international protection are justified by the need to protect this person from possible political persecution, or a possible accusation of political crimes and / or crimes related to the latter, which in the opinion of Ecuador, not only endanger Mr. Assange, but also pose a serious injustice committed against him.
It is undeniable that states, having agreed to numerous and substantive international instruments (many of them legally-binding), have the obligation to provide protection or asylum to persons persecuted for political reasons and have expressed their desire to establish a legal institution to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms based on a general practice accepted as law, which confers on such obligations a mandatory nature, erga omnes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erga_omnes], linked to the respect, protection and progressive development of human rights and fundamental freedoms that are part of jus cogens [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_norm]. Some of these instruments are mentioned below:
a) United Nations Charter of 1945, Purposes and Principles of the United Nations: the obligation of all members to cooperate in the promotion and protection of human rights;
b) Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948: right to seek and enjoy asylum in any country, for political reasons (Article 14);
c) Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 1948: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 27);
d) Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: the protected person should in no case be transferred to a country where they fear persecution for his political views ( Article 45);
e) Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 and Protocol of New York, 1967: prohibits returning or expelling refugees to countries where their lives and freedom would be threatened (Art. 33.1);
f) Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, 1954: The State has the right to grant asylum and classify the nature of the offense or the motives of persecution (Article 4);
g) Convention on Territorial Asylum of 1954: the State is entitled to admit to its territory such persons as it considers necessary (Article 1), when they are persecuted for their beliefs, political opinions or affiliation, or acts that may be considered political offenses ( Article 2), the State granting asylum may not return or expel a refugee who is persecuted for political reasons or offenses (Article 3); also, extradition is not appropriate when dealing with people who, according to the requested State, be prosecuted for political crimes , or common crimes committed for political purposes, or when extradition is requested obeying political motives (Article 4);
h) European Convention on Extradition of 1957, prohibits extradition if the requested Party considers that the offense is a political charge (Article 3.1);
i) 2312 Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 1967 provides for the granting of asylum to persons who have that right under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including persons struggling against colonialism (Article 1.1). It prohibits the refusal of admission, expulsion and return to any State where he may be subject to persecution (Article 3.1);
j) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, provides that the rules and principles of general international law imperatives do not support a contrary agreement, the treaty is void upon conflicts with one of these rules (Article 53), and if there arises a new peremptory norm of this nature, any existing treaty which conflicts with that provision is void and is terminated (Article 64). As regards the application of these Articles, the Convention allows States to claim compliance with the International Court of Justice, without requiring the agreement of the respondent State, accepting the court’s jurisdiction (Article 66.b). Human rights are norms of jus cogens.
k) American Convention on Human Rights, 1969: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 22.7);
l) European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism of 1977, the requested State is entitled to refuse extradition when there is a danger that the person is prosecuted or punished for their political opinions (Article 5);
m) Inter-American Convention on Extradition of 1981, the extradition is not applicable when the person has been tried or convicted, or is to be tried in a court of special or ad hoc in the requesting State (Article 4.3), when, under the classification of the requested State, whether political crimes or related crimes or crimes with a political aim pursued, and when, the circumstances of the case, can be inferred that persecution for reasons of race, religion or nationality; that the situation of the person sought may be prejudiced for any of these reasons (Article 4.5). Article 6 provides, in reference to the right of asylum, that “nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting the right of asylum, when appropriate.”
n) African Charter on Human and Peoples of 1981, pursued individual’s right to seek and obtain asylum in other countries (Article 12.3);
p) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000: establishes the right of diplomatic and consular protection. Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country not represented by the Member State of nationality, have the protection of diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State, under the same conditions as nationals of that State (Article 46).
The Government of Ecuador believes it is important to note that the rules and principles recognized in the international instruments mentioned above and in other multilateral agreements take precedence over domestic law of States, because these treaties are based on universal rules guided by intangible principles, whereof deriving greater respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights against unilateral attitudes of such States. This would compromise international law, which should instead be strengthened in order to consolidate the respect of fundamental rights in terms of integration and ecumenical character.
Furthermore, since Assange applied for asylum in Ecuador, we have maintained high-level diplomatic talks with the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States.
In the course of these conversations, our country has sought to obtain strict guarantees from the UK government that Assange would face, without hindrance, an open legal process in Sweden. These safeguards include that after facing his legal responsibilities in Sweden, that he would not be extradited to a third country; that is, ensuring that the Specialty Rule [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030114/am/30114s01.htm] is not waived. Unfortunately, despite repeated exchanges of messages, the UK at no time showed signs of wanting to reach a political compromise, and merely repeated the content of legal texts.
Assange’s lawyers invited Swedish authorities to take Assange statements in the premises of the Embassy of Ecuador in London. Ecuador officially conveyed to Swedish authorities its willingness to host this interview without interference or impediment to the legal processes followed in Sweden. This measure is absolutely legally possible. Sweden did not accept.
On the other hand, Ecuador raised the possibility that the Swedish government establish guarantees to not subsequently extradite Assange to the United States. Again, the Swedish government rejected any compromise in this regard.
Finally, Ecuador wrote to the U.S. government to officially reveal its position on Assange’s case. Inquiries related to the following:
If there is an ongoing legal process or intent to carry out such processes against Julian Assange and/or the founders of the WikiLeaks organization;
Should the above be true, then under what kind of legislation, and how and under what conditions would such persons be subject to under maximum penalties;
Whether there is an intention to request the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.
The U.S. response has been that it cannot provide information about the Assange case, claiming that it is a bilateral matter between Ecuador and the United Kingdom.
With this background, the Government of Ecuador, true to its tradition of protecting those who seek refuge in its territory or on the premises of its diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange, based on the application submitted to the President of the Republic, transmitted in writing in London, dated June 19, 2012, and supplemented by letter written in London dated June 25, 2012, for which the Government of Ecuador, after a fair and objective assessment of the situation described by Mr. Assange, according to his own words and arguments, endorsed the fears of the appellant, and accepts that there are indications which lead to the conclusion that he may face political persecution, or that such persecution could occur if timely and necessary measures are not taken to avoid it.
The Government of Ecuador is certain that the British Government knows how to assess the justice and righteousness of the Ecuadorian position, and consistent with these arguments, it is confident that the UK will offer safe passage guarantees necessary and relevant to the asylum, so that their governments can honor with action the fidelity owed to law and international institutions that both nations have helped shape along their common history.
It also hopes to maintain unchanged the excellent ties of friendship and mutual respect which bind Ecuador and the United Kingdom and their people, as they are also engaged in promoting and defending the same principles and values, and because they share similar concerns about democracy, peace, and well being, which are only possible if the fundamental rights of everyone are respected.
<
