As we all know Julian Assange handed himself in to UK authorities yesterday. We thought we might also mention the following open letter to Julia Gillard Australia’s Prime Minister signed by the likes of Chomsky, Helen Garner & Burnside QC
Here’s the letter in full
Published at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41914.html
We wrote the letter below because we believe that Julian Assange is entitled to all the protections enshrined in the rule of law ? and that the Australian Government has an obligation to ensure he receives them.
The signatures here have been collected in the course of a day-and-a-half, primarily from people in publishing, law and politics. The signatories hold divergent views about WikiLeaks and its operations. But they are united in a determination to see Mr Assange treated fairly.
We know that many others would have liked to sign. But given the urgency of the situation, we though it expedient to publish now rather than collect more names.
If, however, you agree with the sentiments expressed, we encourage you to leave your name in the comments section.
Dear Prime Minister,
We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.
?We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,? writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.
William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, ?Why can?t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are??
?Why isn?t Julian Assange dead?? writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.
?The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,? says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.
Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of ?terrorism?.
And so on and so forth.
Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ?extraordinary rendition? (kidnapping) to ?enhanced interrogation? (torture).
In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange?s wellbeing.
Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.
As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.
We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.
We urge you to confirm publicly Australia?s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange’s passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.
A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial ? it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.
We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International?s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.
In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.
We look forward to your response.
?
Also a couple of other interesting Wikileaks article have popped up in the last couple of days
This one from SLAW
http://www.slaw.ca/2010/12/06/wikileaks-an-information-war-in-the-clouds-gets-taken-to-the-ground/
WikiLeaks: An Information War in the Clouds Gets Taken to the Ground
Jack Newton
Much ink has been spilled about the diplomatic cable leak facilitated by WikiLeaks. Almost as interesting as the leaks themselves, however, is the information war that is being waged against WikiLeaks, and the measures the site has had to take just to stay accessible.
Over the course of the last week, the site has suffered from a sustained Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack. In such an attack, a group of computers ? sometimes numbering in the millions ? attempt to saturate a target host with a flood of requests, thereby consuming all of the hosts? computation resources and leaving the host unable to respond to legitimate requests.
And from ABC Australia
Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3086781.htm
ELEANOR HALL: As the leaks from the WikiLeaks website continue, the US government is again condemning what it calls the ‘illegal’ publication of state secrets.
But some Australian legal experts question whether the website’s founder, Julian Assange, has broken any law.
Lawyers for Mr Assange say that instead Australia?s Prime Minister may have behaved illegally by defaming their client.
Simon Lauder has our report.
SIMON LAUDER: The WikiLeaks cables have lifted the lid on a world of two faced diplomacy. The uncomfortable revelations are set to continue and rather than deny them the Australian and US governments have turned the focus on the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.
A member of Mr Assange’s legal team, Jennifer Robinson, says the Prime Minister’s assertion that the website’s publication of the documents is illegal goes too far.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well her comments were made outside of Parliament so they’re certainly not privileged and I think it was misguided to suggest that he had committed a crime in England and, indeed, defamatory. Though I think that Prime Minister Gillard’s account will probably come at the ballot box.
SIMON LAUDER: US and Australian authorities are working to find any laws which may have been violated by WikiLeaks.
The President of Liberty Victoria, Spencer Zifcak, says the website doesn’t seem to have done anything illegal.
SPENCER ZIFCAK: All WikiLeaks have done is publish documents that have been given to it. Now the interesting thing about that is WikiLeaks is publishing these documents in association with some of the great newspapers of the world.
So if WikiLeaks is to be charged with the disclosure of official information then presumably these major newspapers will also be in the guns. But I can’t see the authorities, either in Australia or the United States, pursuing those newspapers.
SIMON LAUDER: Mr Zifcak has written to the Prime Minister to express his concern about her comments.
SPENCER ZIFCAK: There is no charge and there has been no trial and even given all of those things the Prime Minister had the confidence to say that Mr Assange was guilty of illegality. Now that seems to me to be completely inappropriate.
SIMON LAUDER: How serious is it to say that someone has done something illegal or could be arrested when there is no proof of that?
SPENCER ZIFCAK: Well I think it is, it is quite a serious thing. But it’s made even more serious by the fact that the statement is made by the Prime Minister of the country. The effect of the statement is to pre-empt the outcome of any legal proceedings.
SIMON LAUDER: The latest publications by WikiLeaks have prompted more accusations of crime.
The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, says the release of a secret list of critical infrastructure is deeply distressing and the illegal publication of classified information poses real concerns and dangers.
The director of the Centre for International Law at the University of Sydney, Dr Ben Saul, says Mr Assange is the victim of an international smear campaign.
BEN SAUL: Julian Assange has become a target of a kind of global campaign to demonise him as a criminal, as a terrorist. I mean this is pretty serious stuff and the Australian Government hasn’t said very much on the public record to suggest that they’re looking out for his interests in any kind of serious way.
SIMON LAUDER: Dr Saul says the most likely avenue for prosecuting WikiLeaks is through the development of international laws which protect diplomatic correspondence, but even that would be problematic.
BEN SAUL: Now we know that some of the disclosures by WikiLeaks have genuinely been in the public interest. That is, disclosure has involved US war crimes, for example, in Afghanistan and Iraq. The disclosure that the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, ordered a campaign of espionage against the United Nations secretary general, I mean these are properly matters in the public interest.
So if the law on diplomatic inviolability is to be extended globally to all kinds of diplomatic information then there really needs to be a kind of exception or carve out for the disclosure of illegal conduct. It doesn’t make sense to absolutely protect the inviolability of diplomatic information if that just becomes a shield for government lawlessness.
SIMON LAUDER: Do you think that the WikiLeaks scandal will lead to laws being tightened?
BEN SAUL: I’d say it’s a fair estimate to suggest that a whole lot of other countries are going to be looking at their laws. Australia, no doubt, is doing that at the moment but it could be some time before those laws are changed.
But there’s certainly great interest amongst governments to look at how they can tighten up the protection of classified information.
SIMON LAUDER: The only legal trouble the founder of WikiLeaks is in so far is an arrest warrant which is in the works, over allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.
ELEANOR HALL: Simon Lauder reporting.
