The Biden Administration Is Bent on Setting an Alarming Precedent by Prosecuting Julian Assange

Published

1 year ago

February 21, 2024

admin

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been imprisoned in London for nearly five years, pending extradition to the United States so he can be prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act by publishing classified information. Since that amount of time behind bars is about the same as the four-to-six-year prison term that Justice Department lawyers have said Assange would be likely to serve if convicted, you might think the Biden administration would be ready to reconsider this case, especially since it poses an alarming threat to freedom of the press. Instead, the U.S. government’s lawyers are back in London for yet another hearing, which Assange’s attorneys describe as a last-ditch attempt to block his extradition.

Recognizing the First Amendment implications, the Obama administration declined to prosecute Assange for obtaining and disclosing confidential State Department cables and military files leaked by former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2010. After all, leading news organizations in the United States and around the world had published stories based on the same documents, and those acts of journalism likewise could be construed as felonies once this precedent was established. So could the routine practices of reporters who cover national security, which commonly involves divulging information that the government prefers to keep secret.

Despite those concerns, the Trump administration decided that Assange should be locked up for doing things thatThe New York Times et al. do on a regular basis. All but one of the 17 counts in Assange’s latest federal indictment relate to obtaining or disclosing “national defense information,” which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Theoretically, Assange could face 160 years in prison for those counts alone, although the government’s lawyers say it probably would be more like the amount of time he already has served in the United Kingdom. Manning herselfwho, unlike Assange, violated the terms of her government employmentreceived a 35-year sentence but was released after seven years thanks to Barack Obama’s commutation.

“Some say that Assange is a journalist and that he should be immune from prosecution for these actions,” John Demers, then the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, told reporters after the Assange indictment was announced in May 2019. “The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it. It is not and has never been the department’s policy to target them for reporting.” There is no need to worry, Demers suggested, because Assange is “no journalist.”

This line of argument misconstrues the “freedom…of the press” guaranteed by the First Amendment, which applies to mass communication generally, not just the speech of people whom the government deigns to recognize as journalists. Demers’ assurance is similar to the reasoning that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit recently applied in counterintuitively concluding that treating journalism as a crime is not “obviously unconstitutional.”

That case involved Priscilla Villarreal, a Laredo, Texas, gadfly and citizen journalist who was arrestedin 2017 for violatingSection 39.06(c) of the Texas Penal Code. Under that previously obscure law, a person who “solicits or receives” information that “has not been made public” from a government official “with intent to obtain a benefit” commits a third-degree felony, punishableby two to 10 years in prison.

Texas defines “benefit” as “anything reasonably regarded as economic gain or advantage.” According to the arrest affidavits, the “benefit” that Villarreal sought was a boost in Facebook traffic. Section 39.06(c) defines “information that has not been made public” as “any information to which the public does not generally have access” that is also “prohibited from disclosure” under theTexas Public Information Act. The arrest affidavits did not address the latter requirement at all.

Like the Espionage Act, Section 39.06(c) purportedly criminalizes common reporting practicesin this case, obtaining information about a public suicide and a fatal car accident from a “backchannel source” at the local police department. Writing for the 5th Circuit majority in Villarreal v. Laredo, Judge Edith Jones did not try to hide her disdain for Villarreal, an independent, uncredentialed journalist who files her unfiltered reports on Facebook instead of publishing vetted and edited stories in a “mainstream, legitimate” news outlet.

“Villarreal and others portray her as a martyr for the sake of journalism,” Jones wrote. “That is inappropriate. She could have followed Texas law, or challenged that law in court, before reporting nonpublic information from the backchannel source. By skirting Texas law, Villarreal revealed information that could have severely emotionally harmed the families of decedents and interfered with ongoing investigations. Mainstream, legitimate media outlets routinely withhold the identity of accident victims or those who committed suicide until public officials or family members release that information publicly. Villarreal sought to capitalize on others’ tragedies to propel her reputation and career.”

Although Jones implies that Villarreal’s arrest was prompted by concern for “the families of decedents,” Villarreal plausibly argued that it was actually punishment for her outspoken criticism of local law enforcement agencies. In any case, there is no First Amendment exception for reporting that might offend or disturb people. And Jones’ characterization of Villarreal’s work as “capitaliz[ing] on others’ tragedies to propel her reputation and career” is an apt, if cynical, description of what many journalists do, even when they work for “mainstream, legitimate media outlets.” Jones apparently is unfamiliar with the bread and butter of local news organizations and has never heard the expression, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

The seven dissenting judges saw the situation differently. “If the First Amendment means anything,” Judge James C. Ho wrote in a dissent joined by five of his colleagues, “surely it means that citizens have the right to question or criticize public officials without fear of imprisonment.” Judge James E. Graves Jr. likewise complained that “the majority opinion will permit government officials to retaliate against speech while hiding behind cherry-picked state statutes.”

Judge Stephen A. Higginson noted that Thomas Paine, who wrote “the pro-independence pamphlet that historian Gordon Wood describes as ‘the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era,'” was, like Villarreal, a “citizen-journalist.” Upholding “the text of the Constitution, as well as the values and history that it reflects,” he said, “the Supreme Court guarantees the First Amendment right of engaged citizen-journalists, like Paine, to interrogate the government.” Jones, by contrast, presumably would view Paine as disreputable, since he did not work for a “mainstream, legitimate media outlet.”

Assange’s critics, including some professional journalists, have proposed a similar distinction, arguing that he does not deserve the First Amendment’s protection because he is not a “real” journalist. But whatever you might think of Assange’s opinions, his tactics, or the care he exercised in publishing classified material, that distinction is not grounded in the Constitution and will not hold in practice.

The editors and publishers of The New YorkTimes,The Guardian,Le Monde,Der Spiegel, andEl Pas recognized as much in 2022, when they urged the Justice Department to drop the case against Assange. In ignoring that advice, the Biden administration seems bent on establishing a dangerous precedent that replaces the First Amendment’s guarantee with the whims of prosecutors.

Politics

‘Shameful’ that black boys in London more likely to die than white boys, says Met Police chief

Published

2 hours ago

July 13, 2025

admin

'Shameful' that black boys in London more likely to die than white boys, says Met Police chief

It is “shameful” that black boys growing up in London are “far more likely” to die than white boys, Metropolitan Police chief Sir Mark Rowley has told Sky News.

In a wide-ranging interview with Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, the commissioner said that relations with minority communities are “difficult for us”, while also speaking about the state of the justice system and the size of the police force.

Sir Mark, who came out of retirement to become head of the UK’s largest police force in 2022, said: “We can’t pretend otherwise that we’ve got a history between policing and black communities where policing has got a lot wrong.

“And we get a lot more right today, but we do still make mistakes. That’s not in doubt. I’m being as relentless in that as it can be.”

He said the “vast majority” of the force are “good people”.

However, he added: “But that legacy, combined with the tragedy that some of this crime falls most heavily in black communities, that creates a real problem because the legacy creates concern.”

Sir Mark, who also leads the UK’s counter-terrorism policing, said black boys growing up in London “are far more likely to be dead by the time they’re 18” than white boys.

“That’s, I think, shameful for the city,” he admitted.

“The challenge for us is, as we reach in to tackle those issues, that confrontation that comes from that reaching in, whether it’s stop and search on the streets or the sort of operations you seek.

“The danger is that’s landing in an environment with less trust.

“And that makes it even harder. But the people who win out of that [are] all of the criminals.”

The commissioner added: “I’m so determined to find a way to get past this because if policing in black communities can find a way to confront these issues, together we can give black boys growing up in London equal life chances to white boys, which is not what we’re seeing at the moment.

“And it’s not simply about policing, is it?”

Sir Mark said: “I think black boys are several times more likely to be excluded from school, for example, than white boys.

“And there are multiple issues layered on top of each other that feed into disproportionality.”

‘We’re stretched, but there’s hope and determination’

Sir Mark said the Met is a “stretched service” but people who call 999 can expect an officer to attend.

“If you are in the middle of the crisis and something awful is happening and you dial 999, officers will get there really quickly,” Sir Mark said.

“I don’t pretend we’re not a stretched service.

“We are smaller than I think we ought to be, but I don’t want to give a sort of message of a lack of hope or a lack of determination.”

“I’ve seen the mayor and the home secretary fighting hard for police resourcing,” he added.

“It’s not what I’d want it to be, but it’s better than it might be without their efforts.”

‘Close to broken’ justice system ‘frustrating’ and ‘stressed’

Sir Mark said the criminal justice system was “close to broken” and can be “frustrating” for others.

“The thing that is frustrating is that the system – and no system can be perfect – but when the system hasn’t managed to turn that person’s life around and get them on the straight and narrow, and it just becomes a revolving door,” he said.

“When that happens, of course that’s frustrating for officers.

“So the more successful prisons and probation can be in terms of getting people onto a law-abiding life from the path they’re on, the better.

“But that is a real challenge. I mean, we’re talking just after Sir Brian Leveson put his report out about the close-to-broken criminal justice system.

“And it’s absolutely vital that those repairs and reforms that he’s talking about happen really quickly, because the system is now so stressed.”

Challenge to reform the Met

The Met chief’s comments come two years after an official report found the force is institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic.

Baroness Casey was commissioned in 2021 to look into the Met Police after serving police officer Wayne Couzens abducted, raped and murdered Sarah Everard.

She pinned the primary blame for the Met’s culture on its past leadership and found stop and search and the use of force against black people was excessive.

At the time, Sir Mark, who had been commissioner for six months when the report was published, said he would not use the labels of institutionally racist, institutionally misogynistic and institutionally homophobic, which Baroness Casey insisted the Met deserved.

However, London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who helped hire Sir Mark – and could fire him – made it clear the commissioner agreed with Baroness Casey’s verdict.

A few months after the report, Sir Mark launched a two-year £366m plan to overhaul the Met, including increased emphasis on neighbourhood policing to rebuild public trust and plans to recruit 500 more community support officers and an extra 565 people to work with teams investigating domestic violence, sexual offences and child sexual abuse and exploitation.

Watch the full interview on Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips from 8.30am on Sunday.

Politics

Unite votes to suspend Angela Rayner over Birmingham bin strike

Published

2 hours ago

July 13, 2025

admin

Unite votes to suspend Angela Rayner over Birmingham bin strike

Labour’s largest union donor, Unite, has voted to suspend Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner over her role in the Birmingham bin strike row.

Members of the trade union, one of the UK’s largest, also “overwhelmingly” voted to “re-examine its relationship” with Labour over the issue.

They said Ms Rayner, who is also housing, communities and local government secretary, Birmingham Council’s leader, John Cotton, and other Labour councillors had been suspended for “bringing the union into disrepute”.

There was confusion over Ms Rayner’s membership of Unite, with her office having said she was no longer a member and resigned months ago and therefore could not be suspended.

But Unite said she was registered as a member. Parliament’s latest register of interests had her down as a member in May.

Politics latest: Italy and other EU countries have ‘huge doubts’ about legality of UK migrant deal

The union said an emergency motion was put to members at its policy conference in Brighton on Friday.

Unite is one of the Labour Party’s largest union donors, donating £414,610 in the first quarter of 2025 – the highest amount in that period by a union, company or individual.

The union condemned Birmingham’s Labour council and the government for “attacking the bin workers”.

Mountains of rubbish have been piling up in the city since January after workers first went on strike over changes to their pay, with all-out strike action starting in March. An agreement has still not been made.

Ms Rayner and the councillors had their membership suspended for “effectively firing and rehiring the workers, who are striking over pay cuts of up to £8,000”, the union added.

‘Missing in action’

General secretary Sharon Graham told Sky News on Saturday morning: “Angela Rayner, who has the power to solve this dispute, has been missing in action, has not been involved, is refusing to come to the table.”

She had earlier said: “Unite is crystal clear, it will call out bad employers regardless of the colour of their rosette.

“Angela Rayner has had every opportunity to intervene and resolve this dispute but has instead backed a rogue council that has peddled lies and smeared its workers fighting huge pay cuts.

“The disgraceful actions of the government and a so-called Labour council, is essentially fire and rehire and makes a joke of the Employment Relations Act promises.

“People up and down the country are asking whose side is the Labour government on and coming up with the answer not workers.”

Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said the government’s “priority is and always has been the residents of Birmingham”.

He said the decision by Unite workers to go on strike had “caused disruption” to the city.

“We’ve worked to clean up streets and remain in close contact with the council […] as we support its recovery,” he added.

A total of 800 Unite delegates voted on the motion.

Politics

Dozens of MPs call for UK government to recognise Palestine as state

Published

2 hours ago

July 13, 2025

admin

Dozens of MPs call for UK government to recognise Palestine as state

Nearly 60 Labour MPs have called on David Lammy and the Foreign Office to immediately recognise Palestine as a state.

A mix of centrist and left-wing MPs, including some committee chairs, wrote to the foreign secretary this week to say “by not recognising [Palestine] as a state, we undermine our own policy of a two-state solution and set an expectation that the status quo can continue and see the effective erasure and annexation of Palestinian territory”.

The 59 MPs suggest the government pursue five different measures to prevent the Israeli government from carrying out its Rafah plan, adding that they believed Gaza was being “ethnically cleansed” – a claim vehemently denied by Israel.

The letter was organised by Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East group.

It states that the Israeli plan, which would see the “population transfer to the southern tip of Gaza in preparation for deportation outside the strip”, is an accurate description, but that they believe a clearer way to describe it is the “ethnic cleansing of Gaza”.

Israeli officials have said they want to separate the civilian population from Hamas, which still controls parts of Gaza and holds dozens of hostages abducted in the October 7 attack that triggered the war 21 months ago.

Emmanuel Macron discussed recognising Palestine as a state at a joint news conference with Sir Keir Starmer on Thursday – the same day the letter was signed.

The French president said: “Today, working together in order to recognise the state of Palestine and to initiate this political momentum is the only path to peace.”

While France has not yet recognised a Palestinian state yet, Norway, Ireland and Spain coordinated their recognition last year.

The letter demands ministers take five different measures to:

• Recognise the state of Palestine
• Continue support for the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA)
• Secure the release of hostages
• Press for the full and unhindered resumption of humanitarian aid
• Fully review and place restrictions on trade with and financial support of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank

The government says it is already providing funding for the UNRWA and working to secure the release of hostages held by Hamas, but immediate recognition of Palestinian statehood will be a much more controversial move.

Sky News understands this is the second time MPs have formally called on the government to immediately recognise the state of Palestine, with previous letters signed by some parliamentary aides and even junior ministers.

Ministers have indicated their plan to recognise Palestine would be “at a time that is most conducive to the peace process” without further clarity of when that might be.

They have also indicated that it would not be suitable to speculate about future sanctions, as this could reduce their impact.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “Since day one, this government has been clear that we need to see an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages cruelly detained by Hamas, better protection of civilians, much-needed food aid, medicines, shelter and other supplies immediately being allowed to enter Gaza, and a path to long-term peace and stability.

“The situation on the ground in Gaza is horrendous – for the hostages and for Palestinians – and we urgently want to see a deal done, to end the suffering on all sides.

“We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state and to doing so when will have most impact in support of a peace process. We continue to provide lifesaving aid to supporting Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and to work closely in support of the Palestinian Authority.”