CORRECTION: This article was updated at 3.25pm on 10 June 2019 to change a description of Jacob Appelbaum as a “Wikileaks staffer” to “Former Wikileaks spokesperson”.
US authorities are reportedly preparing to use a convicted paedophile as a prosecution witness against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
A WikiLeaks press release claims the US is now hoping to useas a witness in its prosecution against Assange. It also states that, as part of the US extradition request, further charges are likely to be added to those already listed:
Press Release: DoJ preparing to file additional indictment against Assange.
The Trump´s DoJ is so desperate to build its case against Assange that it is using as star witness a sociopath, convicted conman and sex criminal, involved in an FBI entrapment operation against WikiLeaks pic.twitter.com/DX0hIDSJRr
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 7, 2019
The press release further:
While the case would collapse in the U.S. due to the prosecution’s reliance on testimony by Thordarson and [Hector] Monsegur, who are not credible witnesses, the United States can conceal their witnesses’ identities during UK extradition proceedings in order to boost their chances of winning.
including paedophilia (involving nine boys). He had pleaded guilty to these offences. Also, in December 2014, Thordarson was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison on 18 charges of embezzlement, theft, and fraud.is a convicted felon in relation to several offences,
Whether a US or UK court could regard Thordarson as a credible witness may be a matter of legal challenge.
Thordarson gave the FBI a large amount of data on WikiLeaks, including private chat message logs, photographs, and contact details of volunteers, activists, and journalists affiliated with the organisation.
According to Gallagher, the FBI asked Thordarson to report back on:
Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir; eminent computer security expert Jacob Appelbaum; and Guardian reporter James Ball, a former WikiLeaks staffer.
Here, according to Ars Technica, is a receipt from the FBI to Thordarson for “1TB of data across eight hard drives that included chat logs, videos, documents, pictures, and other related data to WikiLeaks“:
And there are also these email exchanges between Thordarson and FBI agents.
A copy of a letter was released earlier this year, indicating that charges relating to the US Espionage Act may be under consideration against one former WikiLeaks staffer, if not more. The letter is from the US Attorney’s Office, Department of Justice (DoJ), to former WikiLeaks employee and spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Here is a translation by Netzpolitik. The letter offers Domscheit-Berg immunity from prosecution, providing he fully co-operates. However, when Domscheit-Berg’s lawyers requested access to the proceedings, the DoJ prosecutors reportedly responded by withdrawing their offer.
Former WikiLeaks spokesperson Jacob Appelbaum was also asked to testify but reportedly refused.
David House, a computer programmer and campaigner for Chelsea Manning, was subpoenaed by the Grand Jury in May 2018. According to one media outlet, he’s reportedly co-operating with the DoJ in exchange for immunity.
US legal expert Jack Goldsmith provides a forensic analysis of all 18 charges raised against Assange and argues there is little difference between what WikiLeaks does and the work of mainstream media.
It should also be noted that none of the other media outlets that partnered with WikiLeaks has been charged. And so it could be argued that the charges raised against Assange amount to selective prosecution. That could equate to political prosecution, which is grounds under UK extradition arrangements for US requests to be denied. US lawyer Jacques Semmelman, who specialises in extradition cases, agrees. He argues that the charges raised against Assange are political, saying:
It is a classic political offense. I have a difficult time seeing a British court departing so significantly from legal tradition and saying in this case they will make an exception. The political offense exception as it has existed for probably 150 years has consistently maintained that for espionage charges, they are not extraditable. That’s just a classic principle of international extradition law.
Assange’s health, meanwhile, remains a concern.
The extradition request could also be challenged in the UK courts, given the threats against Assange by US politicians and political commentators, and because of the seizure by Ecuador of confidential correspondence between Assange and his legal team.
The credibility of prosecution witnesses may also be grounds for challenge.
The next extradition hearing is June 14.
Featured image via Channel 4 News/YouTube
We need your help ...
The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.
Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.
We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.
Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?