Tuesday, January 05, 2021


Despite 'Meager Numbers,' Trump Administration Removes Gray Wolves From Endangered Species List

"The delisting of gray wolves is the latest causality of the Trump administration's willful ignorance of the biodiversity crisis and scientific facts."


by
Published on
by

A family of gray wolves tends to their pups. After 45 years, gray wolves were delisted from the Endangered Species Act by the Trump administration on January 4, 2021. (Photo: Chad Horwedel/Flickr/cc)

Wildlife advocates on Monday accused the Trump administration of "willful ignorance" after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act after 45 years of protection, even though experts say the animals are far from out of the proverbial woods. 

"Even with Trump's days in office dwindling, the long-term impact of illegitimate decisions like the wolf delisting will take years to correct."
—Lindsay Larris,
WildEarth Guardians

USFWS announced the rule change—one of over 100 regulatory rollbacks recently pushed through by the Trump administration—in October. The move will allow state authorities to treat the canines as predators and kill or protect them according to their respective laws. 

In South Dakota, for example, hunters, trappers, landowners, and livestock producers are now permitted to kill gray wolves after obtaining the necessary paperwork, which includes a predator/varmint, furbearer, or hunting license. Landowners on their own property and minors under the age of 16 are exempt from licensing requirements.

In neighboring Minnesota, gray wolves will retain a higher level of protection in the northern part of the state—owners of livestock and other animals can kill wolves that pose an "immediate threat"—while in the southern two-thirds of the state people can shoot wolves that they believe pose any threat to livestock, as long as they surrender the carcass.

In Oregon, on the other hand, "wolves remain protected throughout the state," according to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. "Hunting and trapping of wolves remains prohibited statewide."

Last September, Common Dreams reported that an analysis of deregulation in some Western states revealed that a record-breaking 570 wolves, including dozens of pups, were brutally killed in Idaho over a recent one-year period.

"Tragically, we know how this will play out when states 'manage' wolves, as we have seen in the northern Rocky Mountain region in which they were previously delisted," Samantha Bruegger, wildlife coexistence campaigner for WildEarth Guardians, said in reaction to Monday's delisting.

Bruegger cited the Idaho killings, as well as the situation in Washington, where last year "the state slaughtered an entire pack of wolves due to supposed conflicts with ranching interests," as proof that "without federal protections, wolves are vulnerable to the whims and politics of state management."

Monday's delisting comes despite the enduring precarity of wolf populations throughout much of the country. According to the most recent USFWS data, there are only 108 wolves in Washington state, 158 in Oregon, and 15 in California, while wolves are "functionally extinct" in Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.

"These meager numbers lay the groundwork for a legal challenge planned by WildEarth Guardians with a coalition of conservation groups to be filed later this month," said Bruegger. 

Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director at WildEarth Guardians, said in a statement that "the delisting of gray wolves is the latest causality of the Trump administration's willful ignorance of the biodiversity crisis and scientific facts."

"Even with [President Donald] Trump's days in office dwindling, the long-term impact of illegitimate decisions like the wolf delisting will take years to correct," Larris added. "Guardians is committed to challenging this decision in court, while working across political channels to ensure wolves receive as much protection as possible at the state level in the interim


 

For Immediate Release

Organization Profile: 
Contact: 

Samantha Bruegger, WildEarth Guardians, 970-363-4191, sbruegger@wildearthguardians.org
Lindsay Larris, WildEarth Guardians, 310-923-1465, llarris@wildearthguardians.org










Gray Wolves Lose Federal Endangered Species Act Protections

WildEarth Guardians mourns loss of protections for all gray wolves across the lower 48 and vows legal action.

WASHINGTON - Today, the Trump administration’s decision to prematurely strip gray wolves of federal Endangered Species Act protections takes effect. The decision, first announced on October 29, 2020, applies to all gray wolves in the lower 48 states despite the lack of scientific evidence showing true recovery across gray wolves’ historic range. Starting today, management of wolf populations will return to individual state wildlife agencies, some of which are already reinstating hunting and trapping season on wolves.

“Tragically, we know how this will play out when states 'manage' wolves, as we have seen in the northern Rocky Mountain region in which they were previously delisted,” stated Samantha Bruegger, wildlife coexistence campaigner for WildEarth Guardians. “In Idaho, nearly 600 wolves were brutally killed in a one-year span from 2019-2020, including dozens of wolf pups. Last year in Washington, the state slaughtered an entire pack of wolves due to supposed conflicts with ranching interests.  Without federal protections, wolves are vulnerable to the whims and politics of state management.”

According to data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), there are only 108 wolves in Washington state, 158 in Oregon, and a scant 15 in California. Nevada, Utah, and Colorado have had a few wolf sightings over the past three years, but wolves remain functionally extinct in these states. These meager numbers lay the groundwork for a legal challenge planned by WildEarth Guardians with a coalition of conservation groups to be filed later this month.

“The delisting of gray wolves is the latest causality of the Trump administration’s willful ignorance of the biodiversity crisis and scientific facts,” said Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director at WildEarth Guardians. “Even with Trump’s days in office dwindling, the long-term impact of illegitimate decisions like the wolf delisting will take years to correct. Guardians is committed to challenging this decision in court, while working across political channels to ensure wolves receive as much protection as possible at the state level in the interim.”

In delisting wolves, USFWS ignores the science showing they are not recovered in the West. The USFWS concluded that because in its belief there are sufficient wolves in the Great Lakes states, it does not matter that wolves in the West are not yet recovered. The ESA demands more, including restoring the species in the ample suitable habitats afforded by the wild public lands throughout the West.  Wolves only occupy a small portion of available, suitable habitat in Oregon and Washington, and remain absent across vast swaths of their historical habitat in the West, including in Colorado and the southern Rockies.

BACKGROUND: The state of Idaho offers a perfect example of what state "management" of wolves may look like across the American West. According to an analysis of records obtained by Western Watersheds Project, hunters, trappers, and state and federal agencies killed 570 wolves in Idaho during a 12-month period from July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020. Included in the mortality are at least 35 wolf pups, some weighing less than 16 pounds and likely only 4 to 6 weeks old. Some of the wolves shattered teeth trying to bite their way out of traps, others died of hyperthermia in traps set by the U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services, and more were gunned down in aerial control actions. The total mortality during this period represented nearly 60 percent of the 2019 year-end estimated Idaho wolf population.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) recently announced it had awarded approximately $21,000 in “challenge grants” to the north Idaho-based Foundation 4 Wildlife Management, which reimburses wolf trappers a bounty up to $1,000 per wolf killed. The Foundation also has received funding for wolf bounties from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. A single individual may now kill up to 30 wolves under IDFG hunting and trapping rules—a new increase from the 20 wolves previously allowed.

Posted by at No comments:

Treat Fossil Fuels Like Nukes. Endorse a New Nonproliferation Treaty

The treaty addresses a nearly universal failing of climate change regulations, which usually attempt to curb energy demand instead of attacking the oil industry directly by limiting fossil fuel supply.

by
ts

Numerous nations—including New Zealand, France, Costa Rica, Belize and, as of November, Denmark—as well as state and local governments have announced moratoriums on new oil exploration and production. (Photo: CGP Grey/Flickr/cc)

The Los Angeles City Council is poised to endorse a call for a global Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Approval could make Los Angeles the first U.S. city — New York is also in the running — to sign on to the treaty resolution. Introduced in November by Councilman Paul Koretz, it won unanimous support in committee and awaits likely passage by the full council in the new year.

The treaty would do just what its name says: Signatory governments would agree to stop further expansion of the fossil fuel industry within their boundaries. A U.N. report released Dec. 2 indicates just how imperative that step is: To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the goal set in the 2015 Paris climate change agreement, global emissions would have to drop 6% a year between now and 2030; alarmingly, nations instead project an average annual increase of 2% a year.

Besides committing governments to ending the development of new fossil fuel resources, the treaty proposal calls for a coordinated, accelerated phaseout of existing fossil fuel production.

The treaty addresses a nearly universal failing of climate change regulations, which usually attempt to curb energy demand (by establishing, say, a cap-and-trade system or setting far-off deadlines for clean energy conversion) instead of attacking the oil industry directly by limiting fossil fuel supply. Tzeporah Berman, chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative, points out that the Paris agreement is so focused on emissions and demand that it doesn’t even use the terms “coal,” “oil,” “natural gas” and “fossil fuels” — the substances that cause those emissions.

California’s failure to limit supply makes state leaders’ claims to global climate leadership questionable. The state’s most recent two governors, Jerry Brown and now Gavin Newsom, have acknowledged the gravity of the climate crisis, but their administrations have both issued new oil well permits at a rate of 1,000 to 3,000 a year, according to FracTracker Alliance. In fact, new drilling permits in the first nine months of 2020 jumped to 1,646, an increase of 137% over the same period in 2019. The governors’ disinterest in stopping new permits is attributable to the continuing power of the oil industry’s lobbying and campaign contributions, which exert a strong influence on both parties.

Still, the oil industry is dramatically weakening. Exxon lost $2.4 billion in the first nine months of 2020. In California, fossil fuel production is falling despite the issuance of new drilling permits partly because so few of those permits result in oil production, and partly because legacy fields are going dry. (The state slipped from third to seventh among states in annual oil production between 2015 and 2018, the last year for which statistics are available.) Correspondingly, the industry’s claims to its astonishingly large subsidies — globally, roughly $5 trillion, about 6% of global GDP, according to the International Monetary Fund — seem more and more unjustifiable. Of course, considering fossil fuels’ role in destabilizing global climate, those subsidies are outrageous.

Two British social scientists issued the initial call for a global fossil fuel treaty. In a 2018 Guardian op-ed, they proposed the 1970 U.N. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which went into effect just two years after it became eligible for signature, as a model for a similar swift approach to limiting fossil fuel production.

Besides committing governments to ending the development of new fossil fuel resources, the treaty proposal calls for a coordinated, accelerated phaseout of existing fossil fuel production. It would divert money from fossil fuel subsidies to clean energy development in poor countries. The treaty’s creators are also sponsoring the creation of a global registry of fossil fuel production. Data on reserves and production exist, but they want to bring them together in a comprehensive, publicly accessible, standardized report so that supply-side progress toward climate goals can be measured.

Numerous nations — including New Zealand, France, Costa Rica, Belize and, as of November, Denmark — as well as state and local governments have announced moratoriums on new oil exploration and production. Others have phased out fracking and coal production and use. Within a month of the September launch of the treaty initiative, Vancouver, Canada, became the first city to sign on. Hundreds of civic organizations have endorsed the idea, along with nearly 8,000 individuals, including climate activists Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben

Los Angeles is a natural focus for treaty organizers because of its unusually high concentration of oil infrastructure in an urban setting: The city is home to more than 800 active wells in 26 oil and gas fields. Last month, a City Council committee called for the drafting of an ordinance that could phase out oil and gas production in L.A., but any such measure faces heavy industry resistance. By contrast, the treaty resolution, which merely tells the federal government what the city would like it to do, should attract little opposition.

“It’s a little bit like holding on to wild horses,” Berman says of the treaty’s current momentum. “After 30 years of doing this work, it feels like the first time I’m working on something that is commensurate with the scale of the problem.”

Jacques Leslie is a contributing writer to Opinion.

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, January 04, 2021

Prosecution of Assange Is an Attack on Our Own Humanity

"The verdict will not only determine the life of Assange, but also the future of journalism."


by

 Published on

by

Supporters of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange protest outside London's Old Bailey court as his fight against extradition to the U.S. resumed on September 7, 2020. (Photo: Richard Baker/In Pictures/Getty Images)

On January 4, 2021 the London Court will release the hearing verdict of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange’s US extradition case. The indictment against Assange is politically motivated. Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is presiding over hearings, has even acknowledged the political nature of this case when she decided not to rule until at least after the US Presidential election on November 3, 2020.

The verdict will not only determine the life of Assange, but also the future of journalism. The extra-territorial overreach involved in the US government charging a journalist who exposed their war crimes under the Espionage Act threatens press freedom everywhere. This is why all major media and human rights organizations have now stepped forward to oppose the extradition proceedings against Assange.

Their message is clear. Publishing documents that are verified to be authentic and are of public interest is not a crime. It is a central role of the press in a functioning democracy to defend the public’s right to know, and to help keep the government honest. WikiLeaks has done exemplary work in fulfilling this duty. This is journalism, and journalism is not a crime.

The attempted prosecution of Assange is already creating chilling effects on journalists, with a dangerous precedent having been set. One Turkish journalist has now been sentenced to more than 27 years in prison for allegedly supporting terrorism and engaging in political espionage. As we now face a critical moment for our democracy, it is important for us to think about what this war on journalism means and what WikiLeaks represents to all of us.

The collateral murder video

Since its public prominence in 2010 with the publication of the Collateral Murder video, WikiLeaks has changed the face of modern journalism. The release of this 2007 classified military footage, depicting a US Army helicopter gunship attack in Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad, created an international sensation. At the time the video was posted online, the WikiLeaks website temporarily crashed due to the massive influx of visitors, while versions popping up on YouTube reached millions.

This uncensored glimpse into a US invasion of a foreign land shocked the American public, who has been kept well insulated from the operational reality by mainstream media. Visceral images of the US army’s brutal murder of innocent civilians, including two Reuters’ journalists, brought impetus for change. It affected people profoundly, triggering anger, deep sadness, and a sense of betrayal by their own government.

The moving pictures unfolding in the 17-minute film display casual cruelty, with soldiers calling Iraq civilians “dead bastards”, and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in larger numbers. Through the transparent lens of the WikiLeaks hourglass, their savagery is further stripped bare, as the Weapons Arsenal team is seen attacking a wounded person attempting to crawl to safety.

Confronted by this bleak moral terrain, many of us were overcome with despair and hopelessness. Yet, it was not just destruction that was revealed to us. In the forbidden landscape, made available by the WikiLeaks source, a force was found that could redeem the human spirit. It was the conscience of an ordinary person which gave new life to this grotesque image of horrific death.

Awakening of heart

Former US Army analyst Chelsea Manning, through her act of whistleblowing, shed light on the Bush era’s War on Terror. In witnessing everyday life in Iraq under US military occupation, Manning was able to gain access to a perspective that had been suppressed. In the scenes shot from the gunsight of an Apache helicopter she saw another person whose life was as precious as hers, not the “enemy combatants” that she had been trained to see. In that moment, she was able to restore truth - articulated in her words, “We’re human . . . and we’re killing ourselves.”

The heart of another also responded to the life-affirming urge that gave Manning the courage to act out of what she believed to be right. Former US army specialist Ethan McCord, who was involved in the incident in New Baghdad, was captured on video rescuing the wounded children from the vehicle targeted by the Apache helicopter. He came forward after viewing the video published by WikiLeaks.

McCord recalled the moment he grabbed the little girl from amidst the carnage and ran for help. Later that day, as everyone ignored what had happened, McCord could not. This was his moment where that artificial wall between “enemy combatant” and soldier crumbled. He recounted this experience:

“I went to my room to try to clean the children’s blood from my uniform. Fighting back tears from what I’d seen, my emotions were taking over; the very thing that the army taught us not to do in war, I was doing. My humanity and love for the human race was overcoming everything they taught me.”

Information that is freed becomes more than just facts; it becomes a story whose gentle lips tremble with urgency, aching to speak. We begin to feel for each other, and to remember our inherent obligations to one another.

Courage is contagious

The courage that awakened our sense of shared humanity became contagious. It lifted a dark cloud of apathy and inspired the hearts of the youth who grew up on the internet. Under the WikiLeaks banner, people around the world came together to engage in creative acts, harnessing the new citizen journalism which carried with it a torch of justice.

At the end of 2010, after WikiLeaks began publishing troves of sensitive US diplomatic cables, the organization came under heavy pressure by the US government and its allies. Help for the whistleblowing site swiftly emerged from deep inside the web.

When the Tunisian government blocked the release of the US diplomatic cables, benevolent hackers who were sympathetic to the whistleblowing site came and redirected Tunisian government websites to WikiLeaks and exposed the corruption of the Ben Ali regime. At the same time, distributed denial of service (DDoS), the digital equivalent of a sit-in protest, was carried out - providing some redress of grievances by temporarily disabling Tunisian government websites.

When an extrajudicial financial blockade was imposed on WikiLeaks by PayPal, Visa, MasterCard and others refusing to process donations to the organization, the loosely tied online network Anonymous sprung into action in support of WikiLeaks. They engaged in online protests to defend free speech.

The spirit of revolt moving across digital screens began to push the internet generation out onto the streets. From the Arab Spring to the Occupy Wall Street movement, WikiLeaks publications sparked global revolutionary uprisings. Empowered by information, ordinary people who had been rendered spectators in our democracy began to claim their own significance.


Power of love

Chelsea Manning, with her extraordinary courage, stood up against the military industrial complex. She risked her freedom and her life to halt the operation of the machine that turns us into commodities, fodder for extractive capitalism.

By following a tiny voice of conscience, she freed our brothers and sisters who had become faceless and nameless objects, enslaved by the subject position in US imperial supremacy. She helped to restore the primacy of the human heart. Assange used journalism as a tool to defend this sacred heart, allowing it to speak freely, and to let the world hear its voice loud and clear.

WikiLeaks publications gave dignity to the victims of the senseless wars of the US government and their allies. The release of documents concerning the US war on the Middle East revealed 15,000 previously unknown and uncounted murdered Iraqis, and showed 20,000 civilians assassinated by massacre and night raids in Afghanistan. Their commitment to provide their full document archives to the public, with a very rigorous redaction process in place, made it possible for a German citizen - kidnapped and tortured by the CIA after being mistakenly identified as a terrorist - to obtain justice.

Together, Manning and Assange gave us all a gift of seeing ourselves truthfully, to regard each other’s life as being valuable. This awakening of our hearts to our shared humanity opened a possibility for a society based on a principle of love. It is a world beyond borders, where we can relate to one another on a plane of equality, without oppressive mechanisms that separate us.

For this act of liberation, WikiLeaks has been declared an enemy by nearly every powerful state. Assange has been character assassinated, arbitrarily detained without charge for years, and his human rights have been seriously violated. He has been psychologically tortured and spied on. He is now held inside London’s maximum-security prison, alongside murderers and terrorists, facing the risk of extradition to the US, where he could receive no fair trial.

The attempt to prosecute Assange is an assault on our own humanity. As the delivery of the verdict is approaching, the PixelHELPER Gospel Choir performed in front of Belmarsh prison, calling for freedom for this award winning journalist. The empire reaches its hands over Assange trying to squash the heart of democracy forever. Yet the idea that has inspired our collective action cannot be killed. It is kept alive through our courage to stand in our own power and speak truth.

Julian Assange is a journalist, computer programmer and human rights defender. He is a son, a father of two young children and a partner of his loving fiancée. He is a hero and champion of the oppressed, who dedicated his life to crush bastards and nurture the vulnerable. He is our brother who believes in each of us, our ability to self-determine a course of our lives. He is you and me. He is all of us. History will be kind to our friend.

Nozomi Hayase

Nozomi Hayase, Ph.D., is an essayist and author of "WikiLeaks, the Global Fourth Estate: History Is Happening" (2018). Follow her on Twitter: @nozomimagine

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Posted by at No comments:

Assange Wins. The Cost: The Crushing of Press Freedom

The labeling of dissent as mental illness cannot be seen as a victory.


by
Published on
 by
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange during a press conference at Park Plaza Hotel on October 23, 2010 in London, England related to the "Iraq War Logs." The series released at the time included leaks of American military documents, nearly 400,000 in total, included details about how the torture and the abuse of detainees by Iraqi police, was ignored by U.S. forces. Just days earlier, it was reported that the U.S. government had filed charges under the Espionage Act for Assange's work as a journalist. (Photo: D

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange during a press conference at Park Plaza Hotel on October 23, 2010 in London, England related to the "Iraq War Logs." The series released at the time included leaks of American military documents, nearly 400,000 in total, included details about how the torture and the abuse of detainees by Iraqi police, was ignored by U.S. forces. Just days earlier, it was reported that the U.S. government had filed charges under the Espionage Act for Assange's work as a journalist. (Photo: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

The unexpected decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser to deny a US demand to extradite Julian Assange, foiling efforts to send him to a US super-max jail for the rest of his life, is a welcome legal victory, but one swamped by larger lessons that should disturb us deeply.

Those who campaigned so vigorously to keep Assange’s case in the spotlight, even as the US and UK corporate media worked so strenuously to keep it in darkness, are the heroes of the day. They made the price too steep for Baraitser or the British establishment to agree to lock Assange away indefinitely in the US for exposing its war crimes and its crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But we must not downplay the price being demanded of us for this victory.

A moment of celebration

We have contributed collectively in our various small ways to win back for Assange some degree of freedom, and hopefully a reprieve from what could be a death sentence as his health continues to deteriorate in an overcrowded Belmarsh high-security prison in London that has become a breeding ground for Covid-19.

"The personal battle for Assange won't be over until he is properly free. And even then he will be lucky if the last decade of various forms of incarceration and torture he has been subjected to do not leave him permanently traumatised, emotionally and mentally damaged, a pale shadow of the unapologetic, vigorous transparency champion he was before his ordeal began."

For this we should allow ourselves a moment of celebration. But Assange is not out of the woods yet. The US has said it will appeal the decision. And it is not yet clear whether Assange will remain jailed in the UK—possibly in Belmarsh—while many months of further legal argument about his future take place.

The US and British establishments do not care where Assange is imprisoned—be it Sweden, the UK or the US. What has been most important to them is that he continues to be locked out of sight in a cell somewhere, where his physical and mental fortitude can be destroyed and where he is effectively silenced, encouraging others to draw the lesson that there is too high a price to pay for dissent.

The personal battle for Assange won't be over until he is properly free. And even then he will be lucky if the last decade of various forms of incarceration and torture he has been subjected to do not leave him permanently traumatised, emotionally and mentally damaged, a pale shadow of the unapologetic, vigorous transparency champion he was before his ordeal began.

That alone will be a victory for the British and US establishments who were so embarrassed by, and fearful of, Wikileaks' revelations of their crimes.

Rejected on a technicality

But aside from what is a potential personal victory for Assange, assuming he doesn't lose on appeal, we should be deeply worried by the legal arguments Baraitser advanced in denying extradition.

The US demand for extradition was rejected on what was effectively a technicality. The US mass incarceration system is so obviously barbaric and depraved that, it was shown conclusively by experts at the hearings back in September, Assange would be at grave risk of committing suicide should he become another victim of its super-max jails.

One should not also discard another of the British establishment's likely considerations: that in a few days Donald Trump will be gone from the White House and a new US administration will take his place.

There is no reason to be sentimental about president-elect Joe Biden. He is a big fan of mass incarceration too, and he will be no more of a friend to dissident media, whistleblowers and journalism that challenges the national security state than was his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama. Which is no friend at all.

"Keep an eye on whether the new Biden administration decides to drop the appeal case. More likely his officials will let it rumble on, largely below the media's radar, for many months more."

But Biden probably doesn't need the Assange case hanging over his head, becoming a rallying cry against him, an uncomfortable residue of the Trump administration's authoritarian instincts that his own officials would be forced to defend.

It would be nice to imagine that the British legal, judicial and political establishments grew a backbone in ruling against extradition. The far more likely truth is that they sounded out the incoming Biden team and received permission to forgo an immediate ruling in favour of extradition—on a technicality.

Keep an eye on whether the new Biden administration decides to drop the appeal case. More likely his officials will let it rumble on, largely below the media's radar, for many months more.

Journalism as espionage

Significantly, Judge Baraitser backed all the Trump administration's main legal arguments for extradition, even though they were comprehensively demolished by Assange's lawyers.

Baraitser accepted the US government's dangerous new definition of investigative journalism as "espionage," and implied that Assange had also broken Britain's draconian Official Secrets Act in exposing government war crimes.

She agreed that the 2007 Extradition Treaty applies in Assange's case, ignoring the treaty's actual words that exempt political cases like his. She thereby opened the door for other journalists to be seized in their home countries and renditioned to the US.

Baraitser accepted that protecting sources in the digital age—as Assange did for whistleblower Chelsea Manning, an essential obligation on journalists in a free society—now amounts to criminal "hacking." She trashed free speech and press freedom rights, saying they did not provide "unfettered discretion by Mr Assange to decide what he's going to publish."

She appeared to approve of the ample evidence showing that the US spied on Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy, both in violation of international law and his client-lawyer privilege—a breach of his most fundamental legal rights that alone should have halted proceedings.

Baraitser argued that Assange would receive a fair trial in the US, even though it was almost certain to take place in the eastern district of Virginia, where the major US security and intelligence services are headquartered. Any jury there would be dominated by US security personnel and their families, who would have no sympathy for Assange.

So as we celebrate this ruling for Assange, we must also loudly denounce it as an attack on press freedom, as an attack on our hard-won collective freedoms, and as an attack on our efforts to hold the US and UK establishments accountable for riding roughshod over the values, principles and laws they themselves profess to uphold.

Even as we are offered with one hand a small prize in Assange's current legal victory, the establishment's other hand seizes much more from us.

Vilification continues

There is a final lesson from the Assange ruling. The last decade has been about discrediting, disgracing and demonising Assange. This ruling should very much be seen as a continuation of that process.

"The last decade has been about discrediting, disgracing and demonising Assange. This ruling should very much be seen as a continuation of that process."

Baraitser has denied extradition only on the grounds of Assange’s mental health and his autism, and the fact that he is a suicide risk. In other words, the principled arguments for freeing Assange have been decisively rejected.

If he regains his freedom, it will be solely because he has been characterised as mentally unsound. That will be used to discredit not just Assange, but the cause for which he fought, the Wikileaks organisation he helped to found, and all wider dissidence from establishment narratives. This idea will settle into popular public discourse unless we challenge such a presentation at every turn.

Assange's battle to defend our freedoms, to defend those in far-off lands whom we bomb at will in the promotion of the selfish interests of a western elite, was not autistic or evidence of mental illness. His struggle to make our societies fairer, to hold the powerful to account for their actions, was not evidence of dysfunction. It is a duty we all share to make our politics less corrupt, our legal systems more transparent, our media less dishonest.

Unless far more of us fight for these values—for real sanity, not the perverse, unsustainable, suicidal interests of our leaders—we are doomed. Assange showed us how we can free ourselves and our societies. It is incumbent on the rest of us to continue his fight.

Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook won the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include: "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (2008) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair "(2008). His website is here.

Posted by at No comments:

Threat to Journalism Remains, Warn Critics, After Assange Extradition Rejected Solely Due to Brutal US Prison System

"That a British court has ruled that the U.S. prison system is too barbaric to guarantee the safety of Assange tells its own story. But this is about something much bigger than Assange: it's about journalism, the free press, and...  the ability to expose atrocities committed by the world's last remaining superpower."


by
by

Julian Assange's partner Stella Moris speaks to the media outside the

Old Bailey on January 4, 2021 in London.

 (Photo: Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images)

Why did a British judge reject the Trump administration's attempt to extradite Julian Assange, despite accepting "virtually all of the allegations" the U.S. government leveled against the WikiLeaks founder?

The answer lies not in the dire threat extradition would pose to press freedoms across the globe, but in the dangerous abomination that is the U.S. prison system.

In her 132-page ruling (pdf) issued Monday, Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates' Court on Monday described the conditions Assange would face in the U.S. as "harsh" even compared to London's notorious maximum-security Belmarsh jail, where the publisher has been held since April of 2019.

"The one fact that swayed her into refusing the extradition was that the U.S. prison system is so brutal that it would increase the risk of suicide."
—John Rees, Don't Extradite Assange campaign

After dismissing arguments against extradition brought by Assange's legal team—including their warnings that the WikiLeaks founder would be denied a fair trial in the U.S.—Baraitser said (pdf) she believes that if confined to a U.S. supermax prison, "Mr. Assange's mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide."

"Faced with the conditions of near total isolation without the protective factors which limited his risk at [Her Majesty's Prison] Belmarsh, I am satisfied the procedures described by the U.S. will not prevent Mr. Assange from finding a way to commit suicide," said Baraitser, "and for this reason I have decided extradition would be oppressive by reason of mental harm and I order his discharge."

As Shadow Proof managing editor Kevin Gosztola—who has been covering the extradition case from its inception—put it, "The United States government's mass incarceration system just lost them their case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange."

Lawyers for the U.S. government, which in 2019 charged Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act, said they will appeal Baraitser's decision as Assange's attorneys fight for his release on bail. If extradited to the U.S., Assange—whose health has declined precipitously in recent months due to conditions that physicians have condemned as torture—would face up to 175 years in a maximum-security prison.

The aggressive effort by U.S. authorities to extradite and punish Assange for publishing classified documents that exposed American war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan has been decried as a major threat to press freedoms everywhere, given that journalists regularly obtain and report on secret materials.

"We continue to believe that Mr. Assange was targeted for his contributions to journalism, and until the underlying issues here are addressed, other sources, journalists, and publishers remain at risk."
—Rebecca Vincent, Reporters Without Borders

While raising alarm over her dismissal of press freedom concerns, human rights groups organizations welcomed Baraitser's ruling against extradition as an important step in protecting Assange and other journalists around the world.

"Today's ruling is a huge sigh of relief for anyone who cares about press freedom," Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement. "While the judge's opinion contains many worrying assertions that disregard journalists' rights, her rejection of the Trump administration's extradition request means the U.S. government likely won't be able to obtain any precedent that would criminalize common newsgathering and publishing practices. And that is a very good thing."

After joining others in applauding the judge's decision to reject the U.S. extradition request, Rebecca Vincent of Reporters Without Borders said she has "serious concerns about the substance of the judgment."

"We disagree with the judge's assessment that this case is not politically motivated, that it's not about free speech," said Vincent. "We continue to believe that Mr. Assange was targeted for his contributions to journalism, and until the underlying issues here are addressed, other sources, journalists, and publishers remain at risk."

In a column for The Guardian on Monday, Owen Jones wrote that "it is not to critique the soundness of Baraitser's legal judgment to argue that this was the right decision, but for the wrong reason."

"That a British court has ruled that the U.S. prison system is too barbaric to guarantee the safety of Assange tells its own story," Jones added. "But this is about something much bigger than Assange: it's about journalism, the free press, and most importantly of all, the ability to expose atrocities committed by the world's last remaining superpower."

John Rees of the U.K.'s Don't Extradite Assange campaign said Monday that "it's an incredible judgement," noting that "95% of this judge's remarks supported the prosecution."

"She said there's no public interest defense, there's no journalistic defense, there's no political opinion defense," said Rees. "The one fact that swayed her into refusing the extradition was that the U.S. prison system is so brutal that it would increase the risk of suicide, and she wasn't willing to put him into an oppressive prison system."

Noting that the U.S. will appeal, Rees argued Monday's ruling marks "the beginning of the fight, not the end of the fight."

"But it's a terrific day," Rees added. "And if the bail application—which they're discussing inside the court right at this moment—goes through and Julian walks free, that will be a terrific watershed in this case."

Speaking to the media Monday, Stella Moris, Assange's partner, expressed a similar sentiment, calling the ruling "the first step towards justice in this case."

"As long as Julian has to endure suffering and isolation as an unconvicted prisoner in Belmarsh Prison, and as long as our children continue to be bereft of their father's love and affection, we cannot celebrate," said Moris. "We will celebrate the day he comes home."

"We are pleased that the court has recognized the seriousness and inhumanity of what he has endured and what he faces. But let's not forget: the indictment in the U.S. has not been dropped," Moris added. "It continues to want to punish Julian, and make him disappear into the deepest, darkest hole of the U.S. prison system for the rest of his life. That can never happen. We will never accept that journalism is a crime in this country or any other."

Watch:

Nils Muižnieks, Amnesty International's Europe director, said in a statement Monday morning that "we welcome the fact that Julian Assange will not be sent to the USA and that the court acknowledged that due to his health concerns, he would be at risk of ill-treatment in the U.S. prison system."

"But the charges against him should never have been brought in the first place," added Muižnieks. "The fact that the ruling is correct and saves Assange from extradition does not absolve the U.K. from having engaged in this politically-motivated process at the behest of the USA and putting media freedom and freedom of expression on trial. It has set a terrible precedent for which the U.S. is responsible and the U.K. government is complicit."

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) deputy executive director Robert Mahoney echoed Muižnieks, saying in a statement that the U.S. government's "decision to charge the WikiLeaks founder set a harmful legal precedent for the prosecution of journalists around the world simply for interacting with their sources."

"We urge the U.S. Department of Justice to refrain from further pursuing extradition through appeals and to drop all charges against Assange," said Mahoney.

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)