British Judge Justified US-Backed Spying Operation Against Assange
In the extradition decision from Judge Vanessa Baraitser, she excused the
U.S. spying operation against the WikiLeaks founder, suggesting he was a
"risk" to national security.
Kevin Gosztola
Jan 9
Ecuador Embassy in London (Photo: rezendi)
In a ruling on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's extradition, Judge Vanessa
Baraitser contended Assange was most likely targeted in a spying operation
backed by the United States because he was viewed as a "risk to their
national security."
She simultaneously dismissed the argument by Assange's legal team that the
spying operation against Assange was evidence the case is politically
motivated.
Baraitser "declined to make findings of fact" regarding whether a spying
operation took place, "as the allegations are currently being investigated
in Spain." However, she adopted a narrative favorable to U.S. intelligence
agencies.
The decision noted WikiLeaks "published a series of documents" in February
2016, which are said to have shown National Security Agency bugging meetings
and intercepting communications with the leaders of government around the
world."
"In March 2017, Wikileaks published 'Vault 7' [materials], which contained
'a trove of CIA hacking tools' revealing the sophisticated software and
techniques to break into electronics and described as 'the largest ever
publication of confidential documents on the [Central intelligence]
agency.'"
To Baraitser, the fact that WikiLeaks was still publishing "classified
Pentagon and State Department materials" justified counter-espionage
activities that might be directed at disrupting a media organization. She
did not consider whether any of the information was in the public interest
and accepted the notion Assange was a threat.
"A CNN report from July 15, 2019, entitled 'Security reports reveal how
Assange turned an embassy into a command post for election meddling,"
stated, [D]espite being confined to the embassy while seeking safe passage
to Ecuador, Assange met with Russians and world-class hackers at critical
moments, frequently for hours at a time. He also acquired powerful new
computing and network hardware to facilitate data transfers just weeks
before WikiLeaks received hacked materials from Russian operatives."
But the CNN report referenced by the judge did not include any concrete
evidence that Assange was engaged in "election meddling."
CNN examined documents, video, and audio produced by Undercover Global S.L.,
the firm that spied on Assange while he was in the Ecuador embassy.
Instead of focusing on the way his legal team was targeted, like EL PAÍS
did, staff at CNN voraciously consumed logs hoping the documents would
confirm Assange collaborated with Russian intelligence assets to release
emails from John Podesta, Hillary Clintons campaign chairman.
Like CIA analysts, as opposed to journalists, CNN presented the records in a
manner that helped insulate the U.S. government from spying allegations,
which could jeopardize the case against Assange.
Baraitser acknowledged allegations of unlawful surveillance against Assange
at the Ecuador embassy, including the allegation that "extreme measures,
such as kidnapping or poisoning," Assange was considered.
Rather than object to alleged plots of violence, Baraitser treated the
measures charitably, as proof there was a "high concern by the U.S.
authorities regarding Mr. Assanges ongoing activities."
The judge included a summary from the defense of "lawless" acts taken by the
U.S. government against Assange while he was in the Ecuador embassy.
They point to the U.S. engaging in unlawful surveillance including
monitoring conversations with his lawyers, and a reported plot to kidnap and
poison him. They rely on the evidence of two anonymous witnesses who worked
for Undercover Global, a private security firm owned by David Morales. The
witnesses gave evidence about an agreement between Mr. Morales and Sheldon
Adelson, an American casino magnate and financial backer of President Trump,
to monitor Mr. Assange at the embassy. They described Mr. Morales making
covert sound and video recordings across the embassy, with special attention
paid to Mr. Assanges lawyers, and providing these to his American friends
which the defense submits are the U.S. government. They also argue that the
U.S. bullied and bribed the Ecuadorian authorities to ensure Mr. Assanges
expulsion from the embassy.
However, Baraitser dismissed the argument that this represented a disregard
for international law and an attack on a journalist, who was granted asylum.
"I am not aware of an objection or complaint raised by Ecuador either to the
U.S. or to the U.K. authorities. Neither the Ecuadorian government nor its
officials accuse the U.S. of wrongdoing, and no account is offered for the
alleged presence of monitoring equipment in its embassy. The allegation made
by the defense involves sensitive issues between states, including the
extent to which one state consented to the surveillance of its embassy by
another."
Once more, the judge invoked a news media report in order to help her
dismiss a substantive legal argument put forward by Assange's legal team.
She referred to an article from the Guardian that was published on May 15,
2018, and headlined, "How Julian Assange became an unwelcome guest in
Ecuador's embassy."
"Arrangements for monitoring and surveillance of its embassy were made by
Ecuador rather than the U.S. For example, the Guardian reported that Ecuador
had bankrolled a multimillion-dollar spy operation to protect and support
Mr. Assange at its embassy," Baraitser stated.
With this characterization, Baraitser completely absolved the U.S.
government of any wrongdoing. In her view, any issues Ecuador may have had
were a private diplomatic matter and irrelevant to the charges in the case.
Baraitser added, "If the U.S. was involved in the surveillance of the
embassy, there is no reason to assume this related to these proceedings. The
U.S. would be aware that privileged communications and the fruits of any
surveillance would not be seen by prosecutors assigned to the case and would
be inadmissible at Mr. Assanges trial as a matter of U.S. law."
She maintained Gordon Kromberg, assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern
District of Virginia, where Assange would be put on trial, "set out the
procedures which prevent prosecutors from receiving and viewing privileged
materials." Kromberg also outlined provisions that would enable Assange to
"apply to exclude any evidence at his trial, which is based on privileged
material."
This unwavering faith that the U.S. is fair and justand Assange would have
ample opportunity to defend his due process rightsexists throughout
Baraitser's decision. And although the extradition decision was ultimately
denied, it is abundantly clear that the judge was deferential to
institutions of power to a fault.
Presently, the case in Spain has hit a roadblock. The U.S. Justice
Department refuses to respond to requests for identifying information about
the IP addresses used to access U.C. Globals servers, and prosecutors
demand the judge reveal sources of evidence to authorities potentially
guilty of supporting the surveillance.
Seeing Baraitser excuse unlawful surveillance, those behind the U.S.-backed
spying operation against Assange likely breathed a collective sigh of
relief.
