Julian Assange’s lawyers were placed under surveillance. But that’s not the whole story.

Julian Assange
Tom Coburg

A private security company organised 24/7 surveillance of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during his stay at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. This included confidential meetings between Assange and members of his legal team. The surveillance was provided directly to the CIA. These revelations could possibly jeopardise the viability of the US extradition case.

But within this story there lies another that raises serious questions about the establishment media and allegiances.

CIA streaming

According to El Pais, Spanish security firm UC Global was responsible for the surveillance of Assange when he was a guest of the Ecuadorian government at their London embassy. UC Global, a firm with an address in Jerez de la Frontera (Cádiz), was hired by Senain, the former Ecuadorian intelligence service, ostensibly to provide protection for Assange.

Start your day with The Canary News Digest

Fresh and fearless; get excellent independent journalism from The Canary, delivered straight to your inbox every morning.




However, it’s now been revealed that the company’s owner David Morales passed on the results of the operations to the CIA. He even installed a video streaming service direct to the US. Also monitored were meetings between Assange and his lawyers, including Melynda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson, and Baltasar Garzón.

After Rafael Correa was replaced by the right-wing Lenín Moreno as president of Ecuador in May 2017, the latter cancelled the UC Global contract. Moreno then issued a new contract to Ecuadorian company Promsecurity. Video recordings and photos taken by that firm were subsequently used in an extortion attempt.

In the loop

In May 2018 the Guardian ran a story about these very surveillance systems in Ecuador’s embassy. Surveillance included logging of visitors, such as Assange’s lawyer Gareth Peirce, as well as a seven-hour session between Assange and his legal team on 19 June 2016. The story focused largely on the costs of the operation, which in total came to around $5m. These revelations may have contributed to the growing antagonism to Assange by Moreno.

Around the same time, the Guardian ran a number of articles not helpful to Assange’s plight. There was a story claiming Russia was involved in a plot to help Assange flee the UK. Another alleged that Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort visited Assange at the embassy (The Canary reported on this, revealing it was all nonsense). Some of these stories were co-authored by Fernando Villavicencio, a former anti-Correa activist. Villavicencio’s name also appeared as a source at the bottom of an article on Assange and his support for the independence referendum in Catalonia.

There was a time when the Guardian collaborated with WikiLeaks via, for example, the publishing of the Iraq war logs, or the Afghan War logs, or the US embassy cables. But there was a ‘falling out’, and in time the Guardian adopted a different kind of collaboration – with representatives of the UK intelligence and security establishment.

Insider intelligence?

The UK Government’s Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) is more commonly known as the D-Notice Committee, and its stated purpose is to:

prevent inadvertent public disclosure of information that would compromise UK military and intelligence operations

An alternative description is that it acts as a gateway for intelligence, disseminating and managing the kind of information that can be published.

A subset of the DSMA is the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC). Minutes of its November 2013 meeting listed members, including representatives of the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the MOD. It also criticised the Guardian for its publication of classified documents leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden. And it noted:

Towards the end of July [2013] The Guardian had begun to seek and accept DA Notice advice not to publish certain highly sensitive details, and since then the dialogue with the Secretariat had been reasonable and improving.

At the next meeting, minutes listed the Guardian’s deputy editor Paul Johnson as a member and noted:

Requests for DA Notice advice during the period were focussed on two major areas: the intelligence agencies, most notably further disclosures in The Guardian by NSA fugitive Edward Snowden

The minutes added:

The Secretary reported that the engagement of the DPBAC Secretariat with The Guardian had continued to strengthen during the last six months, with regular dialogues between the Secretary and Deputy Secretaries and Guardian journalists. … The process had culminated by the appointment of Paul Johnson (Deputy Editor Guardian News and Media) as a DPBAC member.

Indeed, Johnson’s tenure as DPBAC member continued until November 2018, when it was noted:

The Chairman thanked Paul Johnson for his service to the Committee. Paul had joined the Committee in the wake of the Snowden affair and had been instrumental in re-establishing links with the Guardian.

Privileged communications

In light of these revelations, Johnson’s work with the DBPAC poses questions about the relationship between the press and the DSMA. Nor should we forget that the security and intelligence services that the DSMA work with also liaise with the CIA and the NSA (the latter via the Five Eyes network).

But there’s another kind of intelligence – one that was sabotaged by the very covert operations reported by the Guardian and now by El Pais. For not only were the meetings between Assange and his lawyers monitored, with intelligence provided directly to the CIA, but Moreno reportedly agreed to hand over documents and other material belonging to Assange to the US authorities. Client-lawyer confidentiality remains a cornerstone of the English legal system. However, if that confidentiality is breached, the validity of any legal case under consideration could then potentially be subject to challenge.

Consequently, on this basis, there is an argument that the US extradition request should be denied.

Featured image via Flickr/Cancillería del Ecuador

Since you're here ...

We know you don't need a lecture. You wouldn't be here if you didn't care.
Now, more than ever, we need your help to challenge the rightwing press and hold power to account. Please help us survive and thrive.

The Canary Support
  • Show Comments
    1. I am sad to say (or predict) that whatever comes up in Julian Assange’s defence, whether it be little bits of proof that could help his case, or a full-blown revelation proving the duplicity of our so called U.S. ally, our secret services, our judiciary, and our political system, that would clear him, would be immediately twisted by the MSM and other truth-haters into a farcical counter-claim, or, they would just completely ignore the evidence regardless of any legality, just as they have already been doing.

      When it comes to Julian Assange, it is clear that the U.S. wants his blood and death, and so too does the U.K., which is so heavily under the thumb of the U.S., it won’t stand up for our own humanitarian laws.

      It seems to me that unless he is rescued from Bellmarsh Prison, the U.S. and U.K will cause his death, either directly, or most likely, indirectly through exceptionally bad treatment.

      I don’t think the U.S. and the U.K. want to martyr Julian Assange, but I do think that they would murder him if they fail to get what they want (as they have already shown a willingness to do to others). However, by continually spreading lies about him (just like they do to Jeremy Corbyn, a man who is a legitimately elected MP and Leader of the Labour Party with an impressively peaceful track record), they are proving that they have no regard for Law or even humanity.

      Under U.K and U.S. Law, bearing false witness, fabricating evidence, and trying to destroy a persons life with slander and defamation are jailable CRIMINAL acts. Sadly this kind of behaviour (by those who should be beyond reproach) is all too common, so much so, that many people think it is a lesser offence, or worse, that it is harmless, or not worth fussing over.

      Both the U.S. and U.K. have shown globally that they only obey Law when it suits them, proving that treaties, laws, and agreements, aren’t worth the paper they are written on. If they don’t play by the rules, why the hell should anyone else?

      If Russia was involved in a plot to try and help Assange flee, good on ’em (though I doubt it as Russia would almost certainly have succeeded). Further, I hope they carry out a successful plot to free him, because one thing is for sure, he will never get a fair trial or hearing from either the U.K or the U.S. (nor in Sweden for that matter).

      Even if or when Jeremy Corbyn is elected to #10, I am sure any attempts to free Julian Assange will still be met with the fiercest opposition, particularly from those constant-global-election-meddling-freaks in the U.S.A. (I am not here referring to Americans in general, but the real freaks in the U.S. who are hypocritically hell-bent on full-spectrum global domination).

      1. People like to toot their horns about how “the rule of law and not the lawgiver” is what matters in the US – but like you’ve said, it’s just so far from being unilaterally true in this day and age (and the situations where it doesn’t remain true seem far less random than they should be).

        As far as false witness and such being illegal…also, like you’ve said, just a technicality at this point without a solid mountain of evidence and a strong lean against the individuals engaging in that behavior. This situation is literally a paradoxical reversal of “innocent until proven guilty” in that applying this term to those who do such things literally causes whomever has become the target of such action to be guilty until proven innocent.

    2. Very interesting how the Guardian through Paul Johnson has found a way to be a media voice for the UK intelligence and deep security apparatus. It coincides with the remake of its mission to be everything for the social mass in so far as news is concerned. As a business plan to survive.
      This DBPAC ought to be rendered null ,and void by Parliament to protect its sovereign interests. To be a country with a different voice/perspective on what security means for a country.
      Who is protecting us? Not the DBPAC. They protect the USA’s dangerous opinion in every country.
      A One Opinion for all.
      Dangerous.
      No sense of a diverse debate here on issues, and definitely not interested in democracy.
      It isn’t hard to see why the Guardian participated in the fake antisemitic campaign against Corbyn.
      Socially it wants to please the DBPAC as well.
      Even to become caught up in its social imagination with the Five Eyes of the USA. I suppose this means 2 people talking meaning 4 eyes and they the fifth eye observing. I don’t it’s listening to one with glasses having said to have four eyes talking to himself.
      The details of how George Orwell’s Big Brother comes to rule in his book 1984. For our own good.
      Boris Johnson sure has it backwards. Britian ought to be leaving this dark intelligence in the dust politically to be sovereign.
      How crazy looking in the mirror becomes when you’ve only been given one reflection to look upon as dictated by whom?

      1. Hi loon. I’m sorry but I’ve no idea what the DBPAC is. Google tells me it’s the Diamond Bar Performing Arts Challenge, but I can’t believe that’s right.

    3. Breaking the law when acting in an official capacity while dealing with lawyers seems like quite an effective way to shoot oneself in the foot. Let’s hope this becomes their albatross.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.