Legendary Australian journalist and writer Antony Loewenstein interviews Alexa D. O’Brien the evening after her appearance at the Sydney Opera House with Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald and Robert Manne. Thanks goes to SAWC Sydney for bringing Alexa & Antony to the table; to Antony for his pointed questions (Part 1); and to Alexa for answering ours (Part 2).

Alexa D. O’Brien has become known as a “one-woman court record system” for her extensive coverage of whistleblower Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning’s trial. Alexa has also covered the WikiLeaks release of US State Department Cables, the Guantanamo Files, the global “war on terror” and the Arab Spring. In 2011 Alexa founded the US Day of Rage, a movement for democratic reform which precipitated Occupy Wall Street. She also played a key role in the lawsuit brought by Noam Chomsky and others against the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA.

Alexa D. O'Brien: 'One woman record system' for the Military Court that tried Chelsea Manning

Sydney-siders come out to well-wish the young soldier Bradley Manning

Freedom of the Press Foundation Publishes Leaked Audio of Bradley Manning’s Statement

Tuesday March 12, 2013: Today, Freedom of the Press Foundation published the full, previously unreleased audio recording of Private First Class Bradley Manning’s speech to the military court in Ft. Meade about his motivations for leaking over 700,000 government documents to WikiLeaks.

While unofficial transcripts of this statement are widely available, this marks the first time the American public has heard the actual voice of Manning.
Trevor Timm, Executive Director and founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, stated: “Transparency is vital for an informed public, whether we’re talking about the courtroom, Congress, or the executive branch. We hope this release will shine light on the plight of whistleblowers everywhere.”

In the audio file, Private First Class Manning explains to the military court in his own cadence and words how and why he gave the Apache helicopter video, Afghanistan and Iraq Wars Logs, and the State Department Diplomatic Cables to WikiLeaks. Manning explains his motives, noting how he believed the documents showed deep wrongdoing by the government and how he hoped that the release would “spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan. ”

In conjunction with the statement, Private First Class Manning also pleaded guilty to 10 of the 22 charges against him.

Daniel Ellsberg, famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower as well as a founder and board member for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted the similarities between Manning’s situation and his own prosecution: “Manning faces some of exact same charges I faced forty-two years ago when I leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and eighteen other papers. The only difference is I was a civilian, so I could stay out of jail on bond while the trial was going on, and was able to talk to the media throughout.”

Freedom of the Press Foundation’s mission is to support and defend cutting-edge transparency journalism by supporting those organizations that publish leaks in the public interest. It often reports on news surrounding government secrecy, educating the public about the important relationship between leaking and independent journalism. This recording presented a unique opportunity to bring some small measure of transparency directly by allowing the world to hear for itself the voice of someone who took a controversial and important stance for government transparency.

John Cusack, famed actor and activist who is also a founder and board member for the organization, said: “Growing up with the living legacy of the Berrigan brothers and fellow board member Daniel Ellsberg, I deeply and profoundly respect the sacrifice made by those heroic individuals who speak their truth no matter what price they may pay. We hope this recording inspires more participation in a broad-based movement to restore and protect the First Amendment.”

Freedom of the Press Foundation was founded in the winter of 2012 to crowd-fund a variety of journalism institutions—both start-ups and established organizations—who are dedicated to aggressive, uncompromising journalism in the vein of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. The Foundation’s Board of Directors is comprised of journalists and free expression advocates, including John Perry Barlow, Daniel Ellsberg, Xeni Jardin, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Josh Stearns, Rainey Reitman, Trevor Timm, and John Cusack.

Press Statement, Freedom of the Press Association March 12 2013

The fabulous ‘Saucy Sydney’ Mardi Gras parade for Bradley Manning and Julian Assange

SWACSydney honour Bradley Manning & Julian Assange at The Sydney Mardi Gras Festival

Bradley Manning has now been imprisoned for 1000 days without trail, a part from an Article 138 hearing concerning cruel and inhumane treatment. Read more.

Rehearsals for the Bradley Manning Mardi Gras float went well today, despite the intemperate conditions. The date is March 2nd; the place is Sydney; and it’s not too late to join in the fun!

Nevertheless the world must know, since we just learned it, that Manning’s cage in Kuwait was a real cage, and very small – about 8 x 8 x 8 feet. Manning described it as one that was normally used for animals, and located inside a tent. He was kept there all the time, except 20 minutes per day, and even fed there. He was forced to be awake at night and sleep during the day, from 1pm onwards, with average temperatures rising to 101 F. Manning had almost no human contact for 2 months and he had no idea of what was going to happen to him. That’s when he felt like his “world had shrunk”. His living space and perception of the world quite literally had shrunk. It was at this time he thought of suicide.

At Quantico Manning’s cell was indeed “luxury” by comparison: 8ft by 6ft and while on suicide risk, he was kept there 24 hours a day.

Bradley Manning's cell at Quantico

“Suicide risk means that I sit in my cell for 24 hours a day. I am stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses are taken away from me. I am forced to sit in essential blindness with the exception of the times that I am reading or given limited television privileges. During those times, my glasses are returned to me. Additionally, there is a guard sitting outside my cell watching me at all times.”

Source: Bradley Manning, Article 138 Complaint

-
-

“Life was not much better for me under the previous confinement assignment of POI watch. Like suicide risk, I was held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per day, I sat in my cell. The guards checked on me every five minutes by asking me if I was okay. I was required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guard could not see me clearly, because I had a blanket over my head or I was curled up towards the wall, they would wake me in order to ensure that I was okay. I received each of my meals in my cell. I was not allowed to have a pillow or sheets. I was not allowed to have any personal items in my cell. I was only allowed to have one book or magazine at any given time to read. The book or magazine was taken away from me at the end of the day before I went to sleep. I was prevented from exercising in me [sic] cell daily. The guards would take me to an empty room and allow me to walk. I usually walked in figure eights around the room. When I went to sleep, I was required to strip down to my underwear and surrender my clothing to the guards. my clothing was returned to me the next morning.”

Source: Bradley Manning, Article 138 Complaint

We also learned that the cell light was permanently left on. Manning was not allowed to turn his head away from the light or cover his head with the “scratchy” blanket while sleeping, and if he did, guards would uncover or force his head back towards it. When awaked at 5am, he had to either stand all day, or sit on the bed with feet on the floor but not with his back leaning against the wall. These, according to lawyer Michael Ratner, are “stress positions” and he specified that they are reminiscent of Rumsfeld techniques for breaking a prisoner. Ratner is also President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York and Chair of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin. He is currently a legal adviser to Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

Under the name “Prevention of Injury”, this treatment was maintained during the rest of Manning’s 9 months at Quantico, against repeated advice from psychiatrists, one of whom stated, that his opinion had been ignored for the first time in 24 years of service. Manning was also forced to sign statements, given anti-depressants and other medications. His toilet was next to his bed and he was watched while using it.

The military are in the process of claiming that the ensemble of this treatment was “proper”.

I’ll be doing another interview in a few days with artist Clark Stoeckley, who has been doing the courtroom sketches. Looking forward to hearing a citizen’s first-hand account rather than filtered spin from the distant press. Watch this space.

“I think we can handle the truth and I think those of us who bother to dig a little deeper, deal with the complexities and see past the spin, will find a way to share that truth and make it heard.”

Read More

Sydney archivist Cassie Findlay talks about the global attacks on Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks at “Politics in the Pub”, September 21, 2012.

Archivist Cassie Findlay speaks out for Assange, Manning & Wikileaks

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…

Making his television debut on ABC’s QandA, Andrew Partos leads with two questions about Julian Assange to a panel that includes Australia’s Attorney General Nicola Roxon and Jeffrey Robinson QC. If given a third chance to speak, he would have mentioned his conversation with Mastercard executive David Masters, regarding the Wikileaks blockade.

In this interview, Partos stands his ground against Masters, who denies he said that Mastercard Australia acted on instructions from Julia Gillard and the former Attorney General Robert McClelland, to block donations to Wikileaks. When this story broke just over a week ago, journalists flocked around Masters but completely ignored the other party, and the official statement was as expected. Masters did not deny that the conversation with Mr Partos took place; just what was said. In a case where it’s one man’s word against another, we feel it only fair to let both parties speak.

Partos stands his ground - Mastercard Australia said they acted on instructions from Julia Gillard and the Attorney General to block donations to Wikileaks.

Andrew is a Holocaust survivor and prolific writer of letters to the press in the name of truth, justice and free speech. In the last six years, he has had some 600 letters published but claims to have written over 3000. For that reason he calls himself both the most published – and unpublished! – citizen in Australia.

Fullscreen version: