DOCSLIB.ORG

Media Analysis of Julian Assange's Superseding Indictment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

defend.wikileaks.org

Media analysis of Julian Assange's superseding indictment

The precedent

Glenn Greenwald: The indictment of Assange is a blueprint for making journalists into felons

The argument offered by both the Trump administration and by some members of the selfstyled “resistance” to Trump is, ironically, the same: that Assange isn’t a journalist at all and thus deserves no free press protections. But this claim overlooks the indictment’s real danger and, worse, displays a wholesale ignorance of the First Amendment. Press freedoms belong to everyone, not to a select, privileged group of citizens called “journalists.” Empowering prosecutors to decide who does or doesn’t deserve press protections would restrict “freedom of the press” to a small, cloistered priesthood of privileged citizens designated by the government as “journalists.” The First Amendment was written to avoid precisely that danger.

Most critically, the U.S. government has now issued a legal document that formally declares that collaborating with government sources to receive and publish classified documents is no longer regarded by the Justice Department as journalism protected by the First Amendment but rather as the felony of espionage, one that can send reporters and their editors to prison for decades. It thus represents, by far, the greatest threat to press freedom in the Trump era, if not the past several decades.

…

The vast bulk of activities cited by the indictment as criminal are exactly what major U.S. media outlets do on a daily basis. The indictment, for instance, alleges WikiLeaks “encouraged sources” such as Chelsea Manning to obtain and pass on classified information; that the group provided technical advice on how to obtain and transmit that information without detection, and that it then published the classified information stolen by its source. The indictment also explicitly states “part of the conspiracy [is] that ASSANGE and Manning used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records containing information related to the national defense of the United States.” It includes as part of the criminal conspiracy the fact that Assange and his source “took measures to conceal Manning as the source” by using encrypted chat programs.

Outside the parameters of the Trump DOJ’s indictment of Assange, these activities are called “basic investigative journalism.”

…

Justifying Assange’s prosecution on the grounds that he is “not a journalist” reveals a grand, dark irony: To declare that publishing relevant materials about powerful actors is a right possessed only by those designated by the government to be “real journalists” is itself an obvious threat to press freedom. That was the historical danger the First Amendment sought to avoid.

…

The criminal case against Assange, if it were to succeed, would provide the perfect blueprint, the most powerful precedent imaginable, for criminalizing journalism in the United States. Once it is established that working with sources to publish classified information is no longer journalism but espionage, it will be impossible to limit that menacing principle.

1

Matt Taibbi: Julian Assange Must Never Be Extradited

The 18-count indictment is an authoritarian’s dream, the work of attorneys who probably thought the Sedition Act was good law and the Red Scare era Palmer raids a good start. The “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” is there again, as the 18th count. But counts 1- 17 are all subsection 793 charges, and all are worst-case-scenario interpretations of the Espionage Act as pertains to both the receipt and publication of secrets.

Look at the language: Count 1: Conspiracy to Receive National Defense Information. Counts 2- 4: Obtaining National Defense Information. Counts 5-8: Obtaining National Defense Information. And so on.

The indictment is an insane tautology. It literally charges Assange with conspiracy to obtain secrets for the purpose of obtaining them. It lists the following “offense”:

To obtain documents, writings, and notes connected with the national defense, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defen se…

Slowly – it’s incredible how slowly – it is dawning on much of the press that this case is not just an effort to punish a Russiagate villain, but instead a deadly serious effort to use Assange as a pawn in a broad authoritarian crackdown.

The very news outlets that have long blasted Donald Trump for his hostility to press freedoms are finally coming around to realize that this case is the ultimate example of all of their fears.

…

this is a genuine effort to expand the ability of the U.S. government to put a vice-grip on classified information, scare whistleblowers into silence, and scare the pants off editors across the planet.

The Assange case is more than the narrow prosecution of one controversial person. This is a crossroads moment for the whole world, for speech, reporting, and transparent governance.

It is happening in an era when the hegemonic U.S. government has been rapidly expanding a kind of oversight-free zone within its federal bureaucracy, with whole ranges of activities – from drone killings to intelligence budgets to surveillance – often placed outside the scope of either congress or the courts.

One of the few outlets left that offered any hope of penetrating this widening veil of secrecy was the press, working in conjunction with the whistleblower. If that relationship is criminalized, self-censorship will become the norm, and abuses will surely multiply as a result.

Bruce Shapiro: Trump’s Charges Against Julian Assange Would Effectively Criminalize Investigative Journalism

The DNA of these new charges runs deep into the history of presidential abuse of power. President Trump and Attorney General William Barr are explicitly picking up the foiled press-punishment ambitions of President Richard Nixon in the Pentagon Papers case. When The New York Times first published the Pentagon Papers in June of 1971, Nixon might have let the storm pass. After all, the papers, leaked by former Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg, didn’t directly critique the new Republican president; they exposed the disastrous, cynical Vietnam policies of Nixon’s hated Democratic predecessor, who had been repudiated by his own party. But Nixon saw in the publication of a secret Defense Department study of US involvement in Vietnam something else: his opportunity to muzzle restive, critical journalists. So his Justice Department went to court and, citing the Espionage Act, won an injunction blocking the Times from continuing to publish its series.

2

The legal theory

Kevin Gosztola: Trump Justice Department’s Prosecution Of Julian Assange Relies On Contrived Conspiracy Theory

At Chelsea Manning’s trial, prosecutors pushed a contrived theory:
Manning worked for Assange, as if she was an insider or spy that WikiLeaks turned against the U.S. government and recruited to steal documents for the media organization.

This theory is fundamental to the allegations in the superseding indictment against Assange, yet one massive dilemma for prosecutors existsꢀ—ꢀChelsea Manning’s statement during her court-martial.

On February 28, 2013, Manning outlined in great detail her role in disclosing over a half million documents to WikiLeaks. She meticulously described each set of information, why she was drawn to releasing the documents to the public, and how she downloaded, prepared, and electronically transferred the documents to WikiLeaks.

Manning’s statement conflicts with the government’s theory so they are abusing the grand jury process. They are punishing her so she bends to their will and testifies in front of the grand jury, where they hope they will be able to discredit her statement.

…

In the superseding indictment, prosecutors emphasize the fact that the list requested “bulk databases,” including Intellipedia, a classified Wikipedia for U.S. intelligence analysts. Yet, Manning never released this database to WikiLeaks nor did she release the complete CIA Open Source Center database or PACER database containing U.S. federal court records, which were listed as “important bulk databases.”

…

Assange, who was WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, allegedly established a relationship with Manning, a source, via encrypted chat. She submitted materials that were reviewed. They engaged in discussions of the materials, and she asked for help from WikiLeaks to protect her identity. They employed privacy tools to try and avoid detection by military or government authorities.

What Assange did with Manning is fairly standard in journalism. Perhaps that is why media organizations and press freedom groups unanimously opposed the decision to charge Assange with Espionage Act offenses.

…

Evidence showing Assange recruited Manning to act as an insider for WikiLeaks does not exist. Yet, that is exactly why the government will not withdraw the subpoena against her.

The government knows it is unlikely to succeed in prosecuting Assange unless they undercut the truth Manning asserted in a military court. They must abuse the grand jury process and use confinement and steep financial penalties to force her testimony. She has to be tripped up or baited into making statements useful against Assange or else all they have is a preposterous conspiracy theory that not even the anti-leaks Obama administration was willing to pursue.

The Espionage Act

Miriam Schneir: The Law Being Used to Prosecute Julian Assange

Few would dispute that governments may need to keep certain data secret in the interest of national security. At the same time, the decision not to divulge information must be scrupulously weighed in a democracy against the public’s right to know.

The 1917 Espionage Act does not concern itself with such quibbles, however; it comes down wholeheartedly on the side of secrecy and national security. It does not require proof that the information at issue is highly significant or even that it is secret, but merely that it is “connected with” or “relating to” national defense. Nor does it demand that the alleged perpetrator must actually have harmed the United States or benefited a foreign country, only

3

that he or she intended to do so. Partly because demonstrating intent is so difficult (and refuting it even more so), attorney Susan Buckley, a specialist in media litigation, pronounced the act “one of the scariest statutes around.” Although it is widely acknowledged to be a woefully crude legal instrument—the eminent First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams recently characterized it as “almost farcically overbroad”—it remains on the books essentially as it was written a century ago.

…

Over the years the Supreme Court has handed down a number of decisions that have reined in the Espionage Act. Still, during the hundred-year lifetime of the act, the government has been able to use it to restrict freedom of speech; imprison anti-war activists, socialists, anarchists, communists, and ideological whistle-blowers; and help to destroy numerous progressive organizations and publications. Moreover, who knows how many people have been dissuaded from speaking or acting politically because of the harsh penalties inflicted on some defendants. Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years at the age of 63, Emma Goldman was imprisoned for two years and then deported, both Rosenbergs were executed, Rosenberg co-defendant Morton Sobell was given 30 years and sent to Alcatraz, Chelsea Manning suffered prison conditions verging on torture and received a 35-year sentence (later commuted).

Now, we wait to see whether a president who has insulted individual journalists and has labeled the news media “the enemy of the people” will succeed in wielding this ill-formed statute to strike at freedom of the press.

The specific charges

••

Count 1: Conspiracy to violate § 793(b)-(e) of the Espionage Act in violation of § 793(g); Count 2: Violation of § 793(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 in connection with Manning obtaining the Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs;

•••

Count 3: Same as count 2, but with the State Department cables; Count 4: Same as count 2, but with the Iraq rules of engagement files; Count 5: Attempt to obtain national defense information from SIPRNet in violation of § 793(c) and § 2.

•

Count 6: Unlawfully obtaining and receiving detainee assessment briefs in violation of § 793(c) and § 2.

•••

Count 7: Same as count 6, but with State Department cables; Count 8: Same as count 6, but with Iraq rules of engagement files; Count 9: Causing unlawful disclosure by Manning of detainee assessment briefs in violation of § 793(d) and § 2;

•••

Count 10: Same as count 9, but with State Department cables; Count 11: Same as count 9, but with Iraq rules of engagement files; Count 12: Causing Manning to communicate, deliver and transmit the detainee assessment briefs to Assange in violation of § 793(e) and § 2; Count 13: Same as count 12, but with the State Department cables; Count 14: Same as count 12, but with the Iraq rules of engagement files; Count 15: “Pure publication” of the Afghanistan SIGACTs in direct violation of § 793(e);

•••

•••

Count 16: Same as count 15, but with the Iraq SIGACTs; Count 17: Same as count 15, but with the State Department cables; Count 18: Conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 (the general conspiracy statute), 1030(a)(1) (the rarely used hacking access-restricted government information provision), 1030(a)(2) (unauthorized access to obtain information from government), and 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii) (establishing 5 year sentence).

Gabe Rottman: The Assange Indictment Seeks to Punish Pure Publication

4

The 17 Espionage Act charges in the indictment can be grouped in three categories. The first category includes just count one, a conspiracy charge under § 793(g) of the Espionage Act.

The second category includes counts two through 14. Those look similar to the only other case involving a non-governmental third party charged under the Espionage Act: the unsuccessful prosecution of two employees at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for allegedly conspiring with a Pentagon analyst to receive and disseminate information about Iran. In that case, the government charged one AIPAC employee, Steven Rosen, with aiding and abetting the analyst’s disclosures under both the Espionage Act and 18 U.S.C § 2, the federal statute that permits someone who induces or causes another to commit a crime to be punished just like the offender. The Assange charges do the same but go further than the § 2 claim in the Rosen case. They allege that

Assange “aided, abetted, counseled, induced, procured and willfully caused” Manning to

leak the documents in violation of the Espionage Act (emphasis added). But it’s the third category—counts 15 through 17—that gets at pure publication. These counts focus only on Assange’s having posted the documents on the internet and do not depend on some other action, such as encouraging the leak or receiving the information. Of course, those are also activities similar to newsgathering, which should also receive First Amendment protection. But counts 15 through 17 are totally divorced from any concerted action between Assange and Manning. The theory behind them would permit prosecution even if Assange had received the material anonymously in the mail.

Those counts allege that Assange directly violated the Espionage Act when he “communicated” significant activity, SIGACT, reports from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and State Department cables, “by publishing [the documents] on the internet.” In other words, counts 15 through 17 allege a direct violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) based purely on publication.

Reporters Committee for a Free Press: Special Analysis of the May 2019 Superseding Indictment of Julian Assange

Does it matter if Julian Assange is a journalist?

No. The First Amendment covers everyone. If, for instance, a private citizen had received the Pentagon Papers, recognized their newsworthiness, and published them in a small-town newsletter, the epic 1971 Supreme Court ruling rejecting the government’s injunction should not have turned out differently. The First Amendment also covers non-citizens such as Assange.

Furthermore, there is no journalist carve-out in the Espionage Act. It applies to anyone who obtains or discloses national defense information. So answering the question of whether Assange is a journalist is immaterial in this regard. Indeed, given the risk in permitting the government to determine who is or is not a journalist, advocates of Espionage Act reform often argue for a new protection that would not turn on that question, but would create a “public interest defense” that would protect those who disclose information about, among other things, government misconduct.

Does the First Amendment apply to the publication of government secrets?

because the government has never tried to prosecute someone for the pure publication of classified information, we would argue that the government must allege that Assange did something in coordination with Manning that takes him out of these long-standing protections for the publication of truthful information. The indictment’s general allegations begin with three primary claims against Assange — that he “encouraged sources to (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information; (ii) provide that protected information to Wikileaks for public dissemination; and (iii) continue the pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information to WikiLeaks for distribution to the public.”

It is true that trained investigative reporters will be more circumspect in how they seek the disclosure of government secrets, but it’s difficult to see how one could legally distinguish

5

less sophisticated journalists from this alleged conduct. National security reporting, in particular, relies on the disclosure and occasional publication of government secrets, as well as developing relationships with sources who have access to classified information and are willing to provide it to journalists.

If those three allegations are enough to bring Assange out of the scope of Bartnicki protections, it would be a challenge, as a legal matter, to draw principled distinctions that could be consistently applied between Assange’s conduct and that of an investigative reporter, sufficient to protect that reporter from a similar Espionage Act claim.

Audio

Jeremy Scahill's The Intercepted Podcast: Prosecuting Julian Assange for espionage is a coup attempt against the First Amendment

6

Recommended publications
  • And Jeremy Scahill (USA) Win Human Rights Award

    And Jeremy Scahill (USA) Win Human Rights Award

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Marina Garde February 9, 2016 [email protected] / www.alba-valb.org Tel. 212-674-5398 Fearless, Border-Crossing Journalists Expose Corruption at the Highest Levels: Lydia Cacho (Mexico) and Jeremy Scahill (USA) Win Human Rights Award New York—On Saturday, May 7, 2016, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives (ALBA) will present the ALBA/Puffin Award for Human Rights Activism to journalists Lydia Cacho and Jeremy Scahill. One of the largest monetary awards for human rights in the world, this $100,000 cash prize is granted annually by ALBA and the Puffin Foundation to honor the International Brigades and connect their inspiring legacy with contemporary causes. “Cacho and Scahill both shine as rare examples of investigative journalists who place human rights at the center of their work,” said ALBA board member and 2012 award recipient Kate Doyle. “Their reporting not only affects government policies, but seeks to champion and protect the lives of the world’s most vulnerable citizens. ALBA is proud to honor them.” Working on both sides of the volatile Mexico-United States border, Lydia Cacho and Jeremy Scahill have dedicated their careers to exposing the corruption, violence and abuse of power which go routinely unchallenged in the mainstream media. Cacho’s and Scahill’s work exemplifies the intersections of expository reporting and human rights activism. Their commitment to breaking the most profound silences has prompted investigations into the United States’ shadow wars across the Middle East and Africa as well as Mexican authorities’ use of censorship, torture and corruption. Part of an initiative designed to sustain the legacy of the experiences, aspirations and idealism of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the ALBA/Puffin Award for Human Rights Activism supports current international activists and human rights causes.
  • The Civilian Impact of Drone Strikes

    The Civilian Impact of Drone Strikes

    THE CIVILIAN IMPACT OF DRONES: UNEXAMINED COSTS, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Acknowledgements This report is the product of a collaboration between the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict. At the Columbia Human Rights Clinic, research and authorship includes: Naureen Shah, Acting Director of the Human Rights Clinic and Associate Director of the Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School, Rashmi Chopra, J.D. ‘13, Janine Morna, J.D. ‘12, Chantal Grut, L.L.M. ‘12, Emily Howie, L.L.M. ‘12, Daniel Mule, J.D. ‘13, Zoe Hutchinson, L.L.M. ‘12, Max Abbott, J.D. ‘12. Sarah Holewinski, Executive Director of Center for Civilians in Conflict, led staff from the Center in conceptualization of the report, and additional research and writing, including with Golzar Kheiltash, Erin Osterhaus and Lara Berlin. The report was designed by Marla Keenan of Center for Civilians in Conflict. Liz Lucas of Center for Civilians in Conflict led media outreach with Greta Moseson, pro- gram coordinator at the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School. The Columbia Human Rights Clinic and the Columbia Human Rights Institute are grateful to the Open Society Foundations and Bullitt Foundation for their financial support of the Institute’s Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, and to Columbia Law School for its ongoing support. Copyright © 2012 Center for Civilians in Conflict (formerly CIVIC) and Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America. Copies of this report are available for download at: www.civiliansinconflict.org Cover: Shakeel Khan lost his home and members of his family to a drone missile in 2010.
  • Jeremy Scahill: Two Degrees of Separation from the Dirty Wars Dragnet

    Jeremy Scahill: Two Degrees of Separation from the Dirty Wars Dragnet

    JEREMY SCAHILL: TWO DEGREES OF SEPARATION FROM THE DIRTY WARS DRAGNET Congratulations to Jeremy Scahill and the entire team that worked on Dirty Wars for being nominated for the Best Documentary Oscar. This post may appear to be shamelessly opportunistic — exploiting the attention Dirty Wars will get in the days ahead to make a political point before the President endorses the dragnet on Friday — but I’ve been intending to write it since November, when I wrote this post. Jeremy Scahill (and the entire Dirty Wars team) is the kind of person whose contacts and sources are exposed to the government in its dragnet. To write his book (and therefore research the movie, though not all of this shows up in the movie) Scahill spoke with Anwar al-Awlaki’s father (one degree of separation from a terrorist target), a number of people with shifting loyalties in Somalia (who may or may not be targeted), and Afghans we identified as hostile in Afghanistan. All of these people might be targets of our dragnet analysis (and remember — there is a far looser dragnet of metadata collected under EO 12333, with fewer protections). Which puts Scahill, probably via multiple channels, easily within 3 degrees of separation of targets that might get him exposed to further network analysis. (Again, if these contacts show up in 12333 collection Scahill would be immediately exposed to that kind of datamining; if it shows up in the Section 215 dragnet, it would happen if his calls got dumped into the Corporate Store.) If Scahill got swept up in the dragnet on a first or second hop, it means all his other sources, including those within government (like the person depicted in the trailer above) describing problems with the war they’ve been asked to fight, might be identified too.
  • Jeremy Scahill Shaun King

    Jeremy Scahill Shaun King

    JEREMY SCAHILL &SHAUN KING “Reporting on Racial Conflict at Home and Wars Abroad in Wed, March 28, 2018 6:15 - 8 p.m. the Age of Trump” College Avenue Academic Moderated by Building, Room 2400 Juan González, Professor of Professional 15 Seminary Place, Practice, School of Communication and New Brunswick, NJ Information, and co-host of Democracy Now Jeremy Scahill is an investigative reporter, war correspon- dent, and author of the international bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He has reported from armed conflicts around the world, including Af- ghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, and the former Yugo- slavia. He is a two-time winner of the prestigious George Polk Award and produced and wrote the movie Dirty Wars, a doc- umentary that premiered at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival and was nominated for an Academy Award. He is one of the founding editors of the investigative news site The Intercept, where he also hosts the popular weekly podcast Intercepted. In addition, Scahill is the national security correspondent for The Nation and for Democracy Now. Shaun King is nationally known as a civil rights and Black Lives Matter activist, and as an innovator in the use of social media for political change. He currently works as a columnist for The Intercept, where he writes about racial justice, mass incarceration, human rights, and law enforcement misconduct. He has been a senior justice writer at New York’s Daily News, a commentator for The Young Turks and the Tom Joyner Show, a contributing writer to Daily Kos, and a writer-in-residence at Harvard Law School’s Fair Punishment Project.
  • Chilling Effects on Free Expression: Surveillance, Threats and Harassment

    Chilling Effects on Free Expression: Surveillance, Threats and Harassment

    chapter 16 Chilling Effects on Free Expression: Surveillance, Threats and Harassment Elisabeth Eide Professor of Journalism Studies, Oslo Metropolitan University Abstract: This chapter addresses global surveillance as revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013 and discusses the effects such surveillance – and indeed its revelation – may have on freedom of the press and investigative journalism. The chilling effect – an act of discouragement – has proven to be an effective way of deterring public intel- lectuals and other citizens from voicing their opinions in the public sphere. This chapter presents some examples of how it works on practicing freedom of expres- sion for both groups and individuals, as well as how it may affect relationships between various actors in the public sphere, particularly the state and the media, and journalists/writers and politicians. Finally, it discusses consequences for the future of investigative journalism. Keywords: chilling effect, investigative journalism, surveillance, freedom of expression Rarely it is mentioned, in this regard, that surveillance fundamentally questions journalistic work as such – at least in its form of investigative journalism that requires confidential communication with sources. —Arne Hintz (2013) Introduction This chapter addresses the chilling effect on freedom of expression and free- dom of the press. As a case study, it discusses how investigative journalism, Citation: Eide, E. (2019). Chilling Effects on Free Expression: Surveillance, Threats and Harassment. In R. Krøvel & M. Thowsen (Eds.),Making Transparency Possible. An Interdisciplinary Dialogue (pp. 227–242). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk. https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.64.ch16 License: CC BY-NC 4.0 227 chapter 16 revealing modern global surveillance helped by whistleblower Edward Snowden (in June 2013), may be hampered by this effect, oftentimes in the form of a tight relationship between state power and the media.
  • Dirty Wars: Peace Psychologists and the Need to Confront Reality a Review of Dirty Wars: the World Is a Battlefield Jeremy Scahill Reviewed by Trudy Bond

    Dirty Wars: Peace Psychologists and the Need to Confront Reality a Review of Dirty Wars: the World Is a Battlefield Jeremy Scahill Reviewed by Trudy Bond

    Dirty Wars: Peace Psychologists and the Need to Confront Reality A Review of Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield Jeremy Scahill Reviewed by Trudy Bond Author’s Note. This essay has been published in Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology (Copyright, American Psychological Association; DOI: 10.1037/a0034614). This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies. -- Noam Chomsky (1967, p.1). The dominant narrative is that wars happen and that a peaceful but powerful nation such as the United States responds to the aggression of other nations or groups using military force when diplomacy or other efforts at persuasion are not successful. This view presumes decisions to engage in war emanate from decisions by democratically elected officeholders to protect us. -- Marc Pilisuk and Ines-Lena Mahr (2013, p.3). Jeremy Scahill's recent book, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, is an incisive and disturbing documentation of U.S. covert actions outside the realm of the U.S. Constitution. With 528 pages of penetratingly detailed accounts, Scahill's investigative reporting covers a range of critical topics that do not support the dominant narrative: the U.S. government's engagement with the internal politics of foreign countries, including Somalia and Yemen; the targeted assassinations and kill lists that include U.S. citizens; the vast escalation in drone strikes that have killed civilians and children; and the continuing lies to the public regarding all the above.
  • City Research Online

    City Research Online

    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Kalpouzos, I. (2017). The assination complex: Inside the US government's secret drone warfare programme (Book review). The British Journal of Criminology, 57(6), doi: 10.1093/bjc/azx025 This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/18678/ Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azx025 Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] Jeremy Scahill and the Staff of the Intercept, The Assassination Complex: Inside the US Government’s Secret Drone Warfare Programme (Serpent’s Tail, 2016, 234pp.) Literature on armed drones has spread almost as fast as the drones themselves. They seem to embody an irresistible combination of violence and progress, promising war both total and limited, and precisely administered. Dumbfounded by the bluntness of the recent political transition, we don’t have a full picture of how the new US administration will use this weapon of choice.
  • Jeremy Scahill on the Military Industrial Complex, US-Airbase in Ramstein & Anti- War Movements This Transcript May Not Be 100% Accurate

    Jeremy Scahill on the Military Industrial Complex, US-Airbase in Ramstein & Anti- War Movements This Transcript May Not Be 100% Accurate

    Jeremy Scahill on the Military Industrial Complex, US-Airbase in Ramstein & Anti- War Movements This transcript may not be 100% accurate Introduction Text: Jeremy Scahill is one of the three founding editors of The Intercept. He is an investigative re- porter, war correspondent, and author of the international bestselling books Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield and Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He has reported from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, the former Yu- goslavia, and elsewhere across the globe. Scahill has served as the national security corre- spondent for The Nation and Democracy Now!. Scahill’s work has sparked several congressional investigations and won some of journalism’s highest honors. He was twice awarded the prestigious George Polk Award, in 1998 for foreign reporting and in 2008 for Blackwater. Scahill is a producer and writer of the award- winning film Dirty Wars, which premiered at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival and was nominated for an Academy Award. Zain Raza (ZR) Jeremy Scahill, thank you so much for joining us today. Jeremy Scahill (JS) It’s great to be with you guys. ZR So I want to start off with the farewell address from President Eisenhower. In his last speech he talked about something called the military-industrial complex. I want to quote a passage from that speech: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
  • Cross-Border Targeted Killings: “Lawful but Awful”?

    Cross-Border Targeted Killings: “Lawful but Awful”?

    CROSS-BORDER TARGETED KILLINGS: “LAWFUL BUT AWFUL”? ROSA BROOKS* Since September 11, the United States has waged two very open wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These two wars have killed nearly 7,000 U.S. military personnel and left some 50,000 Ameri- can troops wounded; they have also left an unknown number of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers and civilians dead or wounded.1 But alongside these two costly and visible wars, the United States has also been waging what amounts to a third war. This third war is a secret war, waged mostly by drone strikes, though it has also involved a smaller number of special opera- tions raids.2 I call this third war a secret war, because though its existence is widely known, it remains officially unacknowledged by the government of the United States: In court filings, for in- stance, the United States continues to state that it will neither confirm nor deny its involvement in drone strikes outside of tra- ditional battlefields.3 * Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, and Senior Fellow, New America Foundation. This essay was adapted from remarks given at the 2014 Federalist Society Annual Student Symposium at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. 1. DEP’T OF DEFENSE, http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf [http://perma.cc/ TE3M-UNT2] (last visited July 25, 2014); David Pogue, Iraq, Afghanistan War Wound- ed Pass 50,000, HUFFINGTON POST (Oct. 25, 2012, 12:36 PM) http://www. huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/iraq-afghanistan-war-wounded_n_2017338.html [http://perma.cc/3RDZ-ZGRQ].
  • WAR on DEMAND the Global Rise of Drones ROSA LUXEMBURG STIFTUNG NEW YORK OFFICE by Medea Benjamin Table of Contents

    WAR on DEMAND the Global Rise of Drones ROSA LUXEMBURG STIFTUNG NEW YORK OFFICE by Medea Benjamin Table of Contents

    WAR ON DEMAND The Global Rise of Drones ROSA LUXEMBURG STIFTUNG NEW YORK OFFICE By Medea Benjamin Table of Contents Magical Weapons, Futuristic Warfare. By the Editors....................................................................1 War on Demand The Global Rise of Drones...............................................................................................................2 By Medea Benjamin 1. The Evolution of Drones.........................................................................................................2 2. Justifying a Dirty Business.......................................................................................................4 Drones Are a Humane Way of Waging War...............................................................4 Drones Are Effective Against Terrorists.......................................................................5 Drone Strikes Are Legal.................................................................................................7 Drones are cheap and easy to use..............................................................................7 3. The Players and Their Targets.................................................................................................8 United States..................................................................................................................9 Israel.............................................................................................................................14 United Kingdom...........................................................................................................15
  • Plaintiffs Statement on Judicial Disqualification

    Plaintiffs Statement on Judicial Disqualification

    Case 1:13-cv-01504-ELH Document 19 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND -- Northern Division -- CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, et al. Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 13-1504 v. CHIEF JUDGE COL. DENISE LIND, et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT REGARDING DISQUALIFICATION Plaintiffs,1 by their undersigned counsel, hereby respond to the Letter Order of June 6, 2013 (Dkt. No. 16), requesting statements as to whether the parties contend that disqualification of Judge Hollander in this matter is necessitated based on an employment relationship between her adult son and one of the amici who have filed a brief in support of the motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs do not request disqualification, nor do they believe that disqualification is required under 28 U.S.C. § 455 or Canon 3(C) of the Code of Conduct for U.S Judges. Even assuming amici are treated as parties for purposes of disqualification analysis, “an employment relationship between a party and a judge’s son or daughter does not per se necessitate a judge’s disqualification.” In re Kansas Public Employees Retirement Sys., 85 F.3d 1353, 1364 (8th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases); see also Taylor v. Vermont Dep’t of Educ., 313 F.3d 768, 795 (2d Cir. 2002) (Sotomayor, J.). “Rather, the determination of whether a conflict exists in a given situation is factually bound.” Kansas Public Employees, 85 F.3d at 1364. 1 The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Amy Goodman, Kevin Gosztola, Chase Madar, Julian Assange, The Nation Company LP, Democracy Now! Productions, Inc., and WikiLeaks ITC Inc.
  • The Use of Private Security Contractors in Modern Warfare

    The Use of Private Security Contractors in Modern Warfare

    Strategic Informer: Student Publication of the Strategic Intelligence Society Volume 1 Issue 1 Article 4 March 2012 Let Slip the Dogs of War: The Use of Private Security Contractors in Modern Warfare Jon B. Mitchell Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/si Recommended Citation Mitchell, Jon B. (2012) "Let Slip the Dogs of War: The Use of Private Security Contractors in Modern Warfare," Strategic Informer: Student Publication of the Strategic Intelligence Society: Vol. 1 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/si/vol1/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Strategic Informer: Student Publication of the Strategic Intelligence Society by an authorized editor of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 12 13 Let Slip the Dogs of War their services denotes armed employees, PSCs are her nationalities in the war,52 and the amount of and Triple Canopy have built private armies that “rival still private and therefore do not fall under military these security employees rose steadily throughout the or outgun many of the world’s national militaries.”58 The Use of Private Security authority. This creates a problem for satisfying the conflict. According to an article written in 2007 for Additionally, private security contractors Contractors in Modern Warfare Geneva Conventions’ rules of war as they pertain The Guardian newspaper, “[t]he precise number of frequently participate in lobbying to gain favor and Jon B. Mitchell to POWs and war crimes because of the unclear mercenaries is unclear, but last year, a U.S.