ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! was the tone of the message delivered to Sydney’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade this Christmas by 12 representatives of the Support Assange and Wikileaks Coalition [SAWC]. Two years, they say, is way too long for Julian Assange to be subjected to jail, house arrest, and despite diplomatic asylum having been granted, further confinement inside the Ecuadorian Embassy for over 6 months.

SAWC’s mission was to deliver DFAT’s own documents, obtained through FOI requests; and stage a sit-in until DFAT guaranteed effective action to secure Assange’s life and freedom. They added a large collection of “Facts for Bob” regarding US involvement in the case, and a TIMELINE, also assembled from material that DFAT is already aware of.

It wasn’t exactly a warm reception.

Although the situation is complex, internationally dispersed, and according to the government of Ecuador, clearly political, it is immediately gridlocked by the silence of Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny, who wants to question Assange in relation to tenuous allegations of a sexual nature, but will not do so in any way that avoids the risk of him being forwarded on to the US.

Assange, as we all know by now, has not been charged with any crime in any country, but if delivered to the US, he could be facing indefinite detention without charge, according to the terms of Obama’s 2012 National Defence Authorisation Act [NDAA]; and possible torture, akin to that inflicted upon the alleged Wikileaks source, Private Bradley Manning.

How could that happen to an Australian journalist who didn’t even publish his material in the US, one might ask… Not a problem. The NDAA can apply internationally; and since 2011, the Gillard government has established a number of amenable terms within a US-Australia Alliance.

If Assange frees himself from the Embassy gridlock and returns to Australia, but, the US decides to prosecute… Prime Minister Gillard’s 2012 Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Act has made it easier for the US to extradite him from Australia. The charge in that case would most likely be “conspiracy to commit espionage”. This is punishable by life imprisonment, or – if many prominent US politicians have their way, and Assange’s previously rumoured destination is in fact Texas – the death penalty.

All this, because of the Wikileaks Cablegate publications, or as US courts would attempt to demonstrate, how they came about. Although much more grave, Cablegate is also a tenuous case, since journalists are protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution; and other organisations such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian have published the same material.

But does it really matter, if indefinite detention without charge is currently an option? No surprise that one of our greatest champions of democracy through transparency, Daniel Ellsberg, is fighting so hard against the NDAA. Like the gridlock in the Ecuadorian Embassy, subject to the prerogative of a Prosecutor, rather than the facts of a case, it acts as no more than a “pause button” that temporarily, if not indefinitely erodes the Rule of Law.

There are many more examples of such “Because I can”, non-justice in our world today; instigated by figures of authority for as long as they can get away with it, or as long as it takes to profit. And then there’s the rest of us, who try to juggle with “Because I can’t” in as legal a way as possible.

A DFAT staff member runs off to call Security when Assange supporters arrive at the counter.

Concretely, the case for the Swedish prosecution is tenuous because no one’s chromosomal DNA was found on the condom submitted as ‘evidence’ by Anna Ardin. That’s grounds for dropping the case. The other woman, Sofia Wilen, refused to sign her statement when she discovered what Ardin and her policewoman friend, Irmeli Krans, were cooking up for Assange. That, and the fact that Ardin was present during the entirety of Wilen’s interview, are grounds for its failure to launch.

But even though exculpatory forensic evidence has been available for well over two years, the British appeal process has excluded the details of the case as irrelevant, and Assange’s defence has had to focus only on the legality of the European Arrest Warrant paperwork.

Australian Diplomats continue to play dumb, and say Julian should “Just go to Sweden”; while claiming no knowledge of a US Grand Jury; cables they received describing an investigation “unprecedented in scale and nature”; and a sealed indictment that awaits only his placement in custody – anywhere – to be opened.

Observing the petit bureaucrats in the hallways of DFAT – one asking for us to be tasered – I begin to wonder. “Conspiracy of myopia” is surely an oxymoron, but is that it?

As long as the Swedish Prosecutor refuses to compromise, the Swedish case can not be resolved; Assange can not go to Ecuador or Australia (where he is also wanted by the Australian people, but as a Senator); and Britain’s obligations to extradite stand.

That of course means that Assange will be arrested by British police and taken to Sweden if he leaves the building, even to seek medical aid in relation to a chronic lung infection. Jesus wept. Once in Sweden, he would be immediately imprisoned, and resistance to Sweden’s Temporary Surrender Treaty with the US would no longer be possible, even for the government of Ecuador, his only protectors.

So who is Australia helping? Ecuador would say they are helping those who continue to persecute and have been visibly – to everyone but the wilfully myopic – preparing to prosecute Julian Assange. It is understandable, because Australia has always been subjected to its master’s voice. Australia has always been one season behind, and subdued by its sense of isolation. But communication, transparency and people power is an unstoppable tide, and the quiet of the Ecuadorian Embassy is but the eye of that storm. Lies are short-circuited within an instant and the “pause button” does not hold for long.

We learn quickly how the world works. We challenge boldly the statements and intentions of those who seek to control us behind a facade of democracy and monarchy.

We unite lovingly in common purpose and common principle to design, build, document, finance and defend.

We learn and we teach each other. Together, we challenge. We act.

Now.

What a year 2013 is likely to be for Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Still to come: over 1 million documents that concern every country in the world, and on hearing that, some may have just fallen off their chairs in the Pentagon. For Australians however, the most intriguing part of Assange’s second balcony speech from the Ecuadorian Embassy might have been the following:

“In Australia, an unelected Senator will be replaced by one that IS elected.”

We don’t have many unelected Senators Down Under, but of course the one that springs to mind is the ALP’s Bob Carr, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs.

It might be interesting to speculate on what challenge Assange could be throwing Carr’s way. Recently we have seen Labor Inc. come crashing down, revealed as one of the most corrupted State governments in Australian history. Carr was of course leader of State ALP from 1995-2005, the last two years of which he worked alongside ALP State Secretary Mark Arbib, who later became an Australian Senator. In 2005 Carr left State politics to become a part-time consultant and political lobbyist for Macquarie Bank, Australia’s largest investment bank. According to economist John Quiggin, Carr had already helped carve it into a pot of gold, aka “The Millionaire’s Factory”, during his time as State Labor leader.

In March 2012, after the departure of a very red-faced Senator Mark Arbib, who had been outed by Wikileaks as a US informant, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that Bob Carr would be back, and nominated by her, without consultation with Australian voters, to fill the vacancy in the Australian Senate. In a Cabinet reshuffle, Gillard also named him as Minister for Foreign Affairs in succession to Kevin Rudd.

It is interesting to note that Carr has also served on the board of directors at the United States Studies Centre since 2009, and was awarded a Fulbright Distinguished Fellow Award Scholarship for his work in improving Australia–US relations.

Indeed good relations with the US have been a critical key to political success within the ALP, as the pragmatic Julia Gillard would know, and possibly financial success too…

But are the times a-changing? In 2010, US Embassy officials said:

“Labor Party officials have told us that one lesson Gillard took from the 2004 elections was that Australians will not elect a PM who is perceived to be anti-American.”

Since that time, and due to Wikileaks revelations, attitudes towards the US have shifted somewhat in Australia and throughout the world. According to a recent poll in The Melbourne Age, 72% of readers would elect Senator Assange, who it is clear, did not feel obliged to sign up for the Mickey Mouse Club.

They see him standing stronger than all those who herd around empire; not only as a proud Australian, but a world citizen. And this is Everyman’s time.

TRANSCRIPTION

Good evening London.

Now.

It’s clear for Michael Pearce QC that Australians will have to raise their voice (scream blue murder?) as they eventually did about the plight of David Hicks, before their government will offer the political and diplomatic assistance Julian Assange needs to resolve his current situation.

Mr Assange is currently trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, despite having been granted asylum, since police outside have been briefed to arrest him “under all circumstances”. Curiously, this extraordinary predicament is the result of one judicial authority’s decision; the Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny, who refuses after two years to question him anywhere or anyhow but in person and in Sweden.

Ms Ny has admitted since February 4th 2012 that she could very well use Mutual Legal Assistance, a commonly employed method of interviewing suspects in other countries, but for reasons she will not explain, deems this process “inappropriate” in the case of Assange.

Ny has also refused Ecuador’s invitation to question Mr Assange at their London embassy and has insisted that he be extradited. Lawyer Susan Benn, who spoke outside the Ecuadorian embassy the day Assange arrived there, has pointed out that this “more appropriate” method will involve Assange passing through Swedish custody (most probably for 4 days) before seeing the prosecutor.

Benn adds that this provides the ideal window of opportunity to open the sealed indictment for his temporary surrender to the US in relation to a charge of espionage, since this step necessitates Assange’s prior incarceration. It is perhaps only within this context that Ny’s actions could be deemed appropriate. The case should have been dropped in October 2010, when forensic analysis showed that the famous ripped condom, which served as her material evidence to re-open the investigation, was a fake.

Ny’s refusal to question Assange in a safe place has also permitted her to withhold other exculpatory evidence from his defence team; namely electronic records of conversations between her two clients, before they went to the police station to make an enquiry about STD testing.

Ove Bring, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law recently stated that the charges against Assange would probably have to be dropped following an interview, since ”the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime”. That would appear to be an understatement, but as Naomi Wolf has pointed out, none of the Swedish players seem to be going for a win, since that is not the point of getting Assange to Sweden.

“Both women are being advised by the same high-powered, politically connected lawyer. That would never happen under normal circumstances because the prosecutor would not permit the risk of losing the case because of contamination of evidence and the risk of the judge objecting to possible coaching or shared testimony in the context of a shared attorney. So why would the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, allow such a thing in this case? Perhaps — bearing in mind the threat that Assange will be extradited to the US once he is in Sweden — because she does not expect to have a trial, let alone have to try to win one.”

Marianne Ny is not the only one who is pushing her professional integrity to the limits. Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who is also a lawyer, publicly announced that Assange had committed an illegal act by publishing material that had been sent to Wikileaks. Craig Murray, ex Bristish Ambassador to Usbekistan, not only informs us that other ambassadors around the world do not agree with the actions of Britain’s Foreign Minister William Hague; he also makes it clear that Mr Hague will be putting local police at risk of extradition to Ecuador if they enter the embassy to arrest Assange.

Back in Australia, Foreign Minister Bob Carr claimed that there was not the slightest hint that the US was gunning for Assange, only a week before news of the Grand Jury investigation broke. He was also contradicted by diplomats at the Australian embassy in Washington, who expressed no doubt that a request for extradition was on the cards.

On July 12th 2012, Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam challenged Bob Carr’s persistent denials that Julian Assange is in danger. Who would doubt it now, given the desperate measures numerous public figures are taking, and the international crisis that is building over the capture of someone who has not even been charged with a crime?

Australians should take note of Senator Ludlam’s assessment of the situation and respond en masse by writing IMMEDIATELY to their MPs; to demand not only consular, but political and diplomatic support for their fellow citizen. It is now appropriate that the Australian Government reiterate their request for DUE PROCESS according to international law, no matter how embarrassing it feels to argue Assange’s position as Australia’s first political refugee.

Safe passage to Ecuador must be granted by the UK and if Sweden refuses to question Mr Assange before he goes, so be it. Ecuador are convinced that he will be exposed to the risk of “temporary” surrender to the US – the terms of Obama’s NDAA can make that rather permanent – if prosecutor Ny’s wishes, and hers alone, be granted.

The Australian Government will only help Assange when the people object

T2T also thanks Bob Carr for wasting Christine Assange’s precious time on 2UE with copious information about what happens where there are “charges”.

The Hon Julia Gillard MP

Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600                                                                                    4 June 2012

Dear Prime Minister,

RE: JULIAN ASSANGE

Regrettably we feel compelled to write to you about the plight of Mr Assange.

You will know that many Australians are angry, disappointed and even confused about your government’s response to Mr Assange’s situation.  They feel that way because they care:  they care about civil liberties, they care about freedom of speech, they care about truth and they care about democracy.

Many people fear that Mr Assange’s greatest enemy may not be the United States or Sweden but rather the indifference demonstrated by his own Government, our Government.

Many are wondering why your only contribution to the debate has been initial accusations of illegal conduct followed by muted silence. Why?

As you know, there is currently a 14 day stay on the UK Supreme Court judgment but it is very likely that Mr Assange, an online publisher and journalist, will be extradited to Sweden.  We think that the letter from Mr Assange’s lawyer , Gareth Peirce, to the then Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd dated 25 October 2011; the detailed brief provided to several members of the Australian Parliament by Finers Stephens Innocent in March 2011; the recent article by the Australian Centre of Independent Journalism; and the Fair Trials International note which explains what will happen to Mr Assange once he is taken to Sweden, highlight the reasons for our Government to be concerned.

The Government has said that it has and will continue to provide the same consular assistance offered to any Australian caught up in a legal matter overseas.  That ignores the facts (raised by Mr Tony Kevin, now retired from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) that not only is this not a standard consular issue, but that “David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib received similarly worthless consular access from Howard and Ruddock at the times they were rendered with Australian Government consent to years of torture in Guantanamo. Both men were being abusively treated in Pakistan and Egypt while on their way to Guantanamo, as Australian consular officers looked on impotently.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Carr asserts that no Australian has received more consular support in a comparable period than Mr Assange.  You need only refer the Government to assistance provided to one Mr Thompson (just one week after he was detained in Baghdad, in May 2006, with a cache of arms) to see that the assertion is wrong. It is perhaps also worth mentioning the assistance provided to those caught up in drug cases in Bali.

We understand that Mr Assange asked for assistance from the Ambassador while in Sweden, which wasn’t forthcoming, and that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade later denied that any request had been made.  In any case, no consular assistance was offered while he was in Sweden.

The Senate Official Committee Hansard report of February 24, 2011 shows that Mr Assange was provided with a copy of the Consular Services Charter on December 7, 2010. Of how much use was that?

In November 2011 Mr Assange’s lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, confirmed that the Australian Ambassador in Sweden had agreed to convey questions from Mr Assange’s defence team to the Swedish prosecutor’s office, but said they offered little more. She pointed out that “correspondence was limited to requests to arrange seating in court and requests for briefings on case progress. There was little contact.”

It was only after The Age newspaper approached the Foreign Affairs Department on 25 October 2011 that a response was sent to Mr Assange’s British lawyer, Gareth Peirce, in response to a letter of concern Mr Turnbull had hand delivered to Mr Rudd’s office on 22 September 2011.

We understand that up until November 2011 the High Commission’s help in the United Kingdom was confined to calls to Mr Assange’s lawyers requesting ‘tickets’ to the court hearings. No real and practical help was ever offered.  That same month the Consul-General in the United Kingdom, Mr Pascoe, finally requested a briefing on the case.

We are unable to ascertain whether or not a letter from prominent expatriates handed to the High Commission in December 2011 was responded to. Perhaps you would kindly confirm that it was?

Despite the fact that the Government asserts that it has no information from the United States to indicate that it has laid, or is about to lay, any charges against Mr Assange, or evidence that a sealed indictment already exists, we are kept in the dark about exactly what questions our Government has asked, what assurances have been sought and what information our officials have received.

Various Freedom of Information requests have revealed:

• that the Australian embassy in Washington knew of an “active and vigorous inquiry into whether  Julian Assange can be charged under US law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act” and that the “WikiLeaks case was unprecedented both in its scale and nature”;
• that Australian diplomats have requested “advanced warning of any public announcement of the results of US investigations or proposed actions”, but have raised no concerns about the Australian journalist being pursued by US prosecutors on charges of espionage and conspiracy;
• that Washington provided Canberra with regular updates, including reporting on the issuing of subpoeanas to compel WikiLeaks associates to appear before a grand jury in Virginia, and US State Department efforts to access Twitter and other internet accounts; and
• that the Australian embassy has obtained “confidential or legal commentary“ from private law firms “on aspects surrounding WikiLeaks and/or the positions of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning.”

Washington embassy cables sent to Canberra between 1 November 2010 and 31 January 2012 do not contain any references to representations made by Australian diplomats to US officials concerning proper extradition processes, even though we were assured by Attorney-General Nicola Roxon in April this year that they had.  We note the timing of Ms Roxon’s representations to Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich, US Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and US Deputy Attorney-General James Cole.

We understand that the Australian Government has made representations to the Swedish Government about due process being applied to Mr Assange, and that assurances to that effect have been given by the Swedish Government.  But again, we are kept in the dark about exactly what questions were asked and the terms of the assurances received.

We don’t even know whether the Government has expressed any concerns – and there should be deep concerns – about the way in which charges were laid, investigated and dropped, only to be picked up again by a different prosecutor; about how Mr Assange’s police interview turned up in the tabloid Expressen the day after he was interviewed on 30 August 2010; why the Swedish Prosecutor, Ms Marianne Ny refused to accept Mr Assange’s offer to return to Sweden for interview on 9^th and 10^th of October 2010 and his offer to be interviewed at the Swedish Embassy in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance scheme between Sweden and the United Kingdom; about a contentious Swedish action having an Australian citizen electronically tagged and under house arrest without charge for 545 days, or about a Swedish prosecutor authorising an Interpol Red Notice for Mr Assange when he was required merely for questioning.

We find it disturbing that Mr Assange’s mother, Christine, felt compelled to respond on Twitter to recent government assurances about consular support provided to Mr Assange, as follows:

“Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask US not 2 put him under “Special Administrative Measures” in prison (no touch torture). Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask US 2 ask those who had publicly incited murder against him 2 retract statements. Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask Sweden under Prisoner Transfer Program that any sentence B served in Australia.  Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 grant him safe passage home from the UK & Sweden at end of proceedings.  Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask Sweden 2 grant bail (unquestioned, uncharged, didn’t breach UK bail conditions). Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Gov 2 ask Swedish PM, AG, FM, 2 stop misleading public re: case FACTS, & smearing him in public. Request denied.”

It is very difficult to accept that, and we fail to see how the Government’s actions to date in relation to Mr Assange’s plight or the level of consular support he allegedly received are “something to be proud of“.

Mr Assange’s case obviously is politically charged.  Governments may not be able to interfere in the legal processes of other countries, but there are plenty of precedents where governments have acted diplomatically to prevent legal processes from being invoked or continued.  The Australian Government clearly has that capacity and should exercise it.

Mr Assange and WikiLeaks have given people all over the world, including the Australian people, a glimpse of the truth behind the spin, of the grubby guile behind the veneer of smooth diplomacy, and of the appalling disdain that people in power have for human life, let alone human rights.  We have a right and a need to know these truths, and all Mr Assange and WikiLeaks have done is give us some scope to exercise those rights.

We call on the Australian Government to take all steps it can to assist Mr Assange, both by providing direct real assistance to him, including any necessary financial support for his legal representation and family support, and by exploring and utilising all diplomatic channels that may be available to obviate his further persecution through formal legal channels.

Yours faithfully

Gary Kennedy

Secretary

Newcastle Trades Hall Council

Gary Kennedy, Secretary NTHC

The Newcastle Trades Hall Council (NTHC) currently has 22 Unions affiliated which cover most work areas and job designations in the Hunter. The Newcastle Trades Hall Council is the peak Union body in the Hunter and works closely with Unions NSW and the Australian Council of Trade Unions ( A.C.T.U. )

This co-operation means that State and National campaigns are co-ordinated and run on behalf of Unions by the NTHC.

-

It will be interesting to see how PM Gillard responds…