The Railroad That Awaits Julian Assange
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
13 April 19
The Justice Department said Thursday that it was charging Julian Assange
with one felony count of conspiring to hack into a computer. In the greater
scheme of things, that's a nonsensical charge. There are probably 10,000
fat, lonely guys, living in their parents' basements who the government
could charge with that crime on any given day.
Assange's attorneys in the UK say the extradition process might last five
years because it will likely end up in the European Court of Justice. If
true, conceivably Assange could be detained for five years awaiting
extradition, or roughly the same amount of time he might be sentenced to if
convicted on the computer hacking charge.
Justice Department policy defines time in detention under almost any
circumstance as time served. So if there ever were a trial in the US for the
computer hacking charge it would likely be nothing more than a show trial.
Additional charges after the application for extradition has been filed are
unlikely, due to limitations in extradition treaties requiring full
disclosure of all charges prior to an extradition being considered. But
that's not the issue here.
No matter what happens, no matter what the charges, Julian cannot and will
not get a fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Eastern District of Virginia is known as the "Espionage Court" for a
reason. No national security defendant has ever won a case there. Never. And
Judge Leonie Brinkema reserves all national security cases for herself. She
has Julian's case, she judged my case, as well as the case of CIA
whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling, and we know that she has also reserved what
will be the Ed Snowden case for herself.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll tell you about what I
went through in Judge Brinkema's courtroom. None of it was good. And Julian
should expect exactly the same.
When I was arrested after blowing the whistle on the CIA's torture program,
I was charged with five felonies - three counts of espionage, one count of
violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1981, and one count
of making a false statement. Of course, I hadn't committed espionage, nor
had I made any false statement. (I'm still not exactly sure what the false
statement was supposed to have been.) But those charges were used as
leverage to eventually force me to take a plea. When I said that I wasn't
interested in a plea and that I wanted to go to trial, the prosecutors
threatened to add a second false statements charge and a charge of
obstruction of justice - two throwaway felonies that could be used as
additional leverage. I told them to bring it on, but they never did add
those charges.
The government will invoke something in Julian's case called CIPA - the
Classified Information Protection Act. That means that the court must do
everything possible to "protect" classified information from being revealed,
even to the jury. The first thing that's done in a CIPA trial is that the
courtroom is sealed. The only people allowed inside are the defendant and
the defendant's attorneys, the prosecutors, the bailiff, the clerk, and the
judge. The jury also would be there in the event of a jury trial, but it
gets a little more complicated in that case. The bailiff will lock the
courtroom doors and put tape around them, and he'll cover the windows with
plastic or canvas, all so that nobody outside can hear anything.
If there's a jury trial, the judge will insist that "classified" words or
phrases not be uttered, but instead must be replaced by unclassified words.
For example, "Did you hack into NSA's computers and download documents from
Operation Widget?" becomes "Did you hack into Castle's computers and
download documents from Operation Pilates?" It sounds ridiculous, doesn't
it? Well, it is ridiculous. More importantly, it's very confusing for
jurors, many of whom may conclude, "Wow, there are so many classified words
that are being discussed! He must be guilty!"
Julian's attorneys also will make a number of motions, both for discovery
and for the declassification of documents necessary for his defense. Judge
Brinkema is unlikely to approve any of them. Again, in my case, my attorneys
made 70 motions to declassify 70 separate classified documents necessary for
my defense. We blocked off two full days for the hearings, as did the
prosecutors. But when we got to the courtroom, Judge Brinkema began by
saying, "I'm going to make this easy for everyone. I'm going to deny all 70
of these motions." Her thinking was that I either did it (committed a crime)
or I didn't. There was no reason to "jeopardize national security" if she
was going to eventually convict me anyway. So my attorneys had literally
nothing to present in my defense.
We didn't roll over, of course. My attorneys objected and were overruled.
The prosecution then asked for an in-camera conversation with the judge.
That's a private conversation between the judge and the prosecutors without
my attorneys present. My attorneys objected strenuously. The judge overruled
them again and she went into chambers with prosecutors. As crazily
unconstitutional as this may sound, it is permitted in a national security
case. To this day I have no idea what was said in that room. But when she
came out, the judge looked at my attorneys and reiterated her decision to
overrule the objection. And then, much to my shock, she looked at me and
said, "This case better not go to trial." The hearing ended. It had begun
only 15 minutes earlier.
As we walked out of the courtroom, I asked my attorneys, "What just happened
in there?" "We just lost the case," was the response. "What do we do now?" I
asked. "Now we take a plea." A week later I changed my plea to "guilty." The
government had come down from an offer of 10 years to one of two-and-a-half.
I would do 23 months. My attorneys thought that if I had gone to trial, I
would have lost and I would have realistically gotten 12-18 years. I had no
choice.
At sentencing, the judge said that she was glad the case hadn't gone to
trial. She didn't want "more classified information out there in the public
domain." But then she said, "I don't like this deal. I don't like it at all.
If I could, Mr. Kiriakou, I would give you 10 years. But my hands are tied."
I left for federal prison six weeks later.
Julian is likely in for the same kind of treatment. There no justice to be
found at the Justice Department. There's only punishment for unpopular
opinions and actions. Julian has a great soapbox now. The stakes are high,
but he has to defend his actions and talk about the freedoms of speech and
the press that are so basic and important to the survival of our country.
The Justice Department may have finally bitten off more than it can chew. We
can only hope.
Email This Page
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior
investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the
sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage
Act - a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a
result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner