LONDON: LONDON: A British judge on Monday rejected the United States’ request to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to face espionage charges over the publication of secret US documents a decade ago, saying he was likely to kill himself if held under harsh US prison conditions.
In a mixed ruling for Assange and his supporters, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected defense arguments that the 49-year-old Australian faces a politically motivated American prosecution that rides roughshod over free-speech protections. But she said Assange’s precarious mental health would likely deteriorate further under the conditions of “near total isolation” he would face in a US prison.
“I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America,” the judge said.
Lawyers for the US government said they would appeal the decision, and the US Department of Justice said it would continue to seek Assange’s extradition.
“While we are extremely disappointed in the court’s ultimate decision, we are gratified that the United States prevailed on every point of law raised,” it said in a statement. “In particular, the court rejected all of Mr. Assange’s arguments regarding political motivation, political offense, fair trial and freedom of speech.”
Assange’s lawyers said they would ask for his release from a London prison where he has been held for more than a 18 months at a bail hearing on Wednesday.
Assange, who sat quietly in the dock at London’s Central Criminal Court for the ruling, wiped his brow as the decision was announced. His partner Stella Moris, with whom he has two young sons, wept.
Outside court, Moris said the ruling was “the first step toward justice,” but it was not yet time to celebrate.
“I had hoped that today would be the day that Julian would come home,” she said. “Today is not that day, but that day will come soon.”
The ruling marked a dramatic moment in Assange’s long legal battles in Britain — though likely not its final chapter.
It’s unclear whether the incoming Biden administration will pursue the prosecution, initiated under President Donald Trump.
Assange’s American lawyer, Barry Pollack, said the legal team was “enormously gratified” by the British court’s decision.
“We hope that after consideration of the UK court’s ruling, the United States will decide not to pursue the case further,” he said.
Moris urged Trump to pardon Assange before he leaves office this month.
“Mr. President, tear down these prison walls,” she said. “Let our little boys have their father.”
US prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks’ publication of thousands of leaked military and diplomatic documents. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.
Lawyers for Assange argue that he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment protections of freedom of speech for publishing documents that exposed US military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lawyers for the US government denied that Assange was being prosecuted merely for publishing, saying the case “is in large part based upon his unlawful involvement” in the theft of the diplomatic cables and military files by US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.
The British judge sided with US lawyers on that score, saying Assange’s actions, if proven, would amount to offenses “that would not be protected by his right to freedom of speech.” She also said the US judicial system would give him a fair trial.
The defense also argued during a three-week hearing in the fall that Assange risked “a grossly disproportionate sentence” and detention in “draconian and inhumane conditions” if he was sent to the United States.
The judge agreed that US prison conditions would be oppressive, saying there was a “real risk” he would be sent to the Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado. It is the highest security prison in the US, also holding Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski and Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.
She accepted evidence from expert witnesses that Assange had a depressive disorder and an autism spectrum disorder.
“I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate, causing him to commit suicide with the single minded determination of his autism spectrum disorder,” the judge said.
She said Assange was “a depressed and sometimes despairing man” who had the “intellect and determination” to circumvent any suicide prevention measures taken by American prison authorities.
Britain’s extradition agreement with the US says that extradition can be blocked if “by reason of the person’s mental or physical condition, it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.”
This is not the first time the UK has refused extradition to the United States on those grounds.
In 2018, a British court refused to extradite Lauri Love, a hacker accused of penetrating US government networks, because of the risk he would kill himself. In 2012 then-Home Secretary Theresa May blocked the extradition of Gary McKinnon, who was accused of breaking into US military and space networks, because of the risk he would end his life.
The prosecution of Assange has been condemned by journalists and human rights groups, who say it undermines free speech and imperils journalists. They welcomed the judge’s decision, even though it was not made on free-speech grounds.
“This is a huge relief to anyone who cares about the rights of journalists,” The Freedom of the Press Foundation tweeted.
Assange’s legal troubles began in 2010, when he was arrested in London at the request of Sweden, which wanted to question him about allegations of rape and sexual assault made by two women. In 2012, Assange jumped bail and sought refuge inside the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he was beyond the reach of UK and Swedish authorities — but also effectively was a prisoner, unable to leave the tiny diplomatic space in London’s tony Knightsbridge area.
The relationship between Assange and his hosts eventually soured, and he was evicted from the embassy in April 2019. British police immediately arrested him for breaching bail in 2012.
Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed, but Assange has remained in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison throughout his extradition hearing.
UK judge refuses US extradition of WikiLeaks founder Assange
https://arab.news/rfbgx
UK judge refuses US extradition of WikiLeaks founder Assange
- US prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse
- The prosecution of Assange has been condemned by journalists and human rights groups
Instagram’s political content limit could ‘fuel censorship of pro-Palestine voices’
- Accessing political content now requires users to go into their settings and actively opt in via their preferences
- “Social media is an essential platform for people to bear witness and speak out against abuses,” HRW says
LONDON: Meta has found itself again under scrutiny after it quietly rolled out a new feature on Instagram that automatically limits users’ exposure to what it considers “political” content.
The tech giant is being accused of censorship during a global election year, with rights groups telling Arab News that the move risks fueling systematic censorship of pro-Palestinian content.
Instagram users discovered the feature, which was first announced on Feb. 9, was implemented on Friday without directly notifying them.
Accessing political content now requires users to go into their settings and actively opt in via their preferences.
Meta’s definition of political content is ambiguous, describing it as likely to mention “government, elections, or social topics that affect a group of people or society at large.”
Meta referred Arab News to a little-noticed statement from February without providing further detail. In explaining the decision, the company said that it wanted to make its platforms “a great experience for everyone.”
“If you decide to follow accounts that post political content, we don’t want to get between you and their posts, but we also don’t want to proactively recommend political content from accounts you don’t follow,” it said.
“Under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), companies have a responsibility to avoid infringing on human rights, identify and address the human rights impacts of their operations, and provide meaningful access to a remedy to those whose rights they abused,” Rasha Younes of Human Rights Watch told Arab News.
“For social media companies, including Meta, this responsibility includes aligning their content moderation policies and practices with international human rights standards, ensuring that decisions to take down content are transparent and not overly broad or biased, and enforcing their policies consistently,” Younes said.
The update applies to Explore, Reels, and in-feed recommendations and suggested users that Instagram shows to users.
Meta said that users would still be able to see political content from the accounts they currently followed.
It also stated that accounts flagged by Meta for posting political content could appeal the decision that prevented them from being recommended into the feeds if they believe that it was applied incorrectly.
The announcement of the policy change was also posted on Threads by Adam Mosseri, Meta’s head of Instagram.
Explaining the company’s decision, the American-Israeli businessman said: “Our goal is to preserve the ability for people to choose to interact with political content, while respecting each person’s appetite for it.”
This recent policy is part of Meta’s larger strategy to cut off its services from political and news content, signaling a significant shift in how the company views its role in the information ecosystem.
The company plans to remove the news tab from Facebook in Australia and the US by early April.
“One of the top pieces of feedback we’re hearing from our community right now is that people don’t want politics and fighting to take over their experience on our services,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during Facebook’s earnings call in January 2021.
However, the implementation of this recent policy has sparked outrage, particularly in light of the war in Gaza.
“Instagram’s move to limit ‘political content’ on the platform risks fueling censorship of content in support of Palestine, at a time of unspeakable atrocities and repression already stifling Palestinians’ expression. Social media is an essential platform for people to bear witness and speak out against abuses,” Younes said.
Earlier in December, Human Rights Watch accused Meta of participating in a wider wave of online censorship, specifically targeting content in support of Palestine and Palestinian human rights, against the backdrop of the war.
The report documented 1,049 cases in which peaceful pro-Palestine content was taken down or suppressed.
Younes recommended that Meta, “improve transparency around requests by governments’ Internet referral units, including Israel’s Cyber Unit, to remove content ‘voluntarily’— that is, without a court or administrative order to do so — and about its use of automation and machine learning algorithms to moderate or translate Palestine-related content.
“It should carry out due diligence on the human rights impact of temporary changes to its recommendation algorithms that it introduced in response to the hostilities between Israel and Hamas since Oct. 7.”
EU mulls removal of Iranian firm linked to internet blackout from censorship list
- ArvanCloud was sanctioned in 2022 for its role in censorship Internet in the country
LONDON: The European Union is reportedly contemplating the removal of ArvanCloud from its roster of human rights sanctions.
The company was sanctioned in 2022 due to its involvement in Iran’s internet censorship.
According to Iran International, citing a source close to the matter, the decision to lift the sanctions appears to be driven by claims from ArvanCloud's supporters abroad.
These supporters allege that the company played a significant role in providing millions of Iranian citizens with access to a free internet during the Woman, Life Freedom protests in 2022-2023.
During the nationwide demonstrations, which called for fundamental economic, social, and political changes, ArvanCloud was accused of assisting the Islamic Republic in censoring the internet, given its close ties to Iran’s intelligence services and top officials.
Consequently, the company, along with some of its executives, was also sanctioned by the US.
Subsequently, ArvanCloud announced the termination of its contract with the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
This development precedes the EU’s annual review of its list of individuals and entities found to be violating human rights in Iran.
Iran has a history of blocking tens of thousands of websites since 2002, including prominent social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
The country is notorious for its strict internet censorship measures, which have included shutting down internet access for most Iranians during nationwide protests. These measures aim to prevent the dissemination of information online and obstruct communication among citizens.
ArvanCloud, which controls 49 percent of Iran’s cloud space market, continues to host many critical websites in the Islamic Republic, including those of the presidency, IRNA news agency, and the Ministry of Islamic Guidance.
Additionally, one of the company’s information centers is installed at Payam Airport, which belongs to the Ministry of Communications.
Doctors Without Borders rejects Israeli army claim of ‘terror activity’ at site of deadly attack in Gaza
- 2 family members of staff member killed and 7 others injured by Israeli forces in February
- Likely a tank shell ‘fired directly into the building,’ according to a media probe
DUBAI: Israeli forces have been accused of intentionally, and without provocation, attacking a Doctors Without Borders aid shelter housing 64 people in Al-Mawasi, Gaza, on Feb. 20 killing two relatives of a staff member and injuring seven others.
The attack came despite Israeli forces being informed of the precise location of the shelter, Doctors Without Borders, or the MSF, reportedly said. The Israeli army has claimed that there was “terror activity” at the site, which the MSF has rejected.
Sky News revealed the findings of its investigation into the incident on Wednesday, prompting the Israeli Defense Forces to initiate its own “examination” into the incident.
The news organization said it visited the site, and used on-the-ground footage, open-source techniques and interviews with witnesses and weapons experts to understand how the incident unfolded.
Witnesses told Sky News they heard loud noises that seemed to come from a tank track, while some also heard gunshots.
The evidence suggests the attack was initiated by a tank shell that entered through a window. “It’s difficult to draw definitive conclusions merely from imagery however I believe the damage is the result of a tank round being fired directly into the building,” said former British army artillery officer and director of Chiron Resources, Chris Cobb-Smith.
He dispelled any notions about it being an attack by Hamas, saying he was “unaware of any direct fire weapons of this caliber being operated by Hamas” and is “doubtful that anything of this size would have been able to be deployed and fired with the amount of IDF activity in the area.”
Witnesses and MSF members said they also heard gunfire before the building was hit.
Meinie Nicolai, general director of the aid organization, who visited the site soon after the attack, said bullets were fired at the front of the shelter.
The investigation further revealed that on the day of the attack, the Israeli army said on its Telegram channel that its forces were operating in northern, central and southern Gaza Strip and continuing “intensive operations in western Khan Younis,” but it did not mention the immediate area around the shelter.
Moreover, the IDF’s Arabic-language spokesperson Avichay Adraee published an evacuation map on the same day of two neighborhoods further north in and around Gaza City, which did not cover the area where the shelter is located.
Emergency services arrived at the scene at least two-and-a-half hours after the attack due to security concerns, according to the investigation.
The injured were taken to the International Medical Corps Field hospital in Rafah, said the MSF.
“We are outraged and deeply saddened by these killings,” said Nicolai in February.
“These killings underscore the grim reality that nowhere in Gaza is safe, that promises of safe areas are empty and deconfliction mechanisms unreliable,” she added.
The IDF, which has launched its own investigation, said that it “fired at a building that was identified as a building where terror activity is occurring,” but did not provide any evidence.
The MSF said in a statement on Wednesday it “refutes any allegations of terror activity occurring in MSF-run structures.
“The shelter was used by humanitarian personnel and their family members, identified by an MSF flag, and notified to the Israeli authorities.”
In a statement, the IDF added: “After the incident, reports were received of the death of two uninvolved civilians in the area. The IDF regrets any harm to civilians and does everything in its power to operate in a precise and accurate manner.”
Under international humanitarian law, medical facilities and units must be respected and protected in all circumstances.
Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale Law School, told Sky News that medical facilities are “presumed to be civilian objects and not subject to targeting during armed conflict.”
She added that if the IDF intentionally targets a civilian object, it counts as “potentially a war crime.”
Last week, the IDF launched an operation in and around Al-Shifa, saying senior Hamas operatives were based at the sprawling compound. Days of heavy fighting have followed, with the military reporting about 170 Palestinian militants killed and hundreds more arrested or questioned.
US, UK sanction Gaza Now media channel over Hamas fundraising
- “Treasury remains committed to degrading Hamas’ ability to finance its terrorist activities,” US Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence Brian Nelson said
- “The UK Government has announced a full asset freeze against two individuals suspected of providing financial support for Gaza Now,” the UK Treasury said
WASHINGTON: US and UK authorities unveiled sanctions Wednesday against two people and three companies related to the popular media channel Gaza Now over its fundraising efforts in support of Hamas.
The Treasury Department said in a statement that Gaza Now, whose popular Telegram channel has more than 1.8 million followers, and its founder Mustafa Ayash, started fundraising for Hamas after its unprecedented attack on October 7.
That attack resulted in about 1,160 deaths in Israel, mostly civilians, and the capture of around 250 hostages, according to an AFP tally of Israeli official figures.
Israel’s retaliatory campaign has killed at least 32,414 people in Gaza, most of them women and children, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.
“Treasury remains committed to degrading Hamas’ ability to finance its terrorist activities, including through online fundraising campaigns that seek to funnel money directly to the group,” US Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence Brian Nelson said in a statement.
The Treasury Department accused the group of “having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Hamas.”
The US also unveiled sanctions against Aozma Sultana, the director of two companies that allegedly gave “thousands of dollars to Gaza Now and advertised Gaza Now as a partner during a joint fundraiser shortly after the October 7 terrorist attack.”
The Treasury Department’s actions are being carried out alongside similar actions by the UK authorities.
“The UK Government has announced a full asset freeze against two individuals suspected of providing financial support for Gaza Now — a news agency that promotes the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist groups,” the UK Treasury said in a statement.
“All funds and economic resources in the UK belonging to or controlled by Sultana and Ayash have been frozen,” they added.
Australia’s ABC staff raise concerns over alleged Israeli bias in Gaza reporting
- Memo from staff meeting indicated network’s over-reliance on Israeli sources, distrust of Palestinian ones
- In January, staff threatened walkout after Antoinette Lattouf dismissed for sharing social media post critical of Israel
LONDON: Staff at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation have voiced concerns about what they perceive as biased coverage of the Gaza conflict in favor of Israel.
In a document obtained by Al Jazeera through a freedom-of-information request, staff indicated “an over-reliance on Israeli sources and explicit distrust of Palestinian sources,” as well as language that “favored the Israeli narrative over objective reporting.”
The three-page summary detailed a November meeting involving 200 staff members who expressed concerns about the broadcaster’s coverage.
The document said: “We’re worried the language we’re using in our coverage is askew, favoring the Israeli narrative over objective reporting.
“This is evident in our reluctance to use words such as war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and occupation to describe various aspects of Israeli practices in Gaza and the West Bank, even when the words are attributed to respectable organizations and sources.”
While ABC acknowledged that it could not make accusations of genocide or war crimes, staff argued that the broadcaster “should be more proactive in reporting them to properly contextualize the conflict,” adding that the correct language to describe Israeli aggression in the region was still lacking.
In response, an ABC spokesperson said: “All major stories are subject to robust internal discussion, and we listen to and respect staff input.”
The spokesperson declined to comment further on internal matters but affirmed that the ABC Ombudsman’s Office had reviewed the coverage of the Gaza conflict and found it to be “professional, wide ranging, and reflective of newsworthy events.”
The latest development followed previous controversies at ABC, including the allegedly unlawful dismissal of Lebanese-Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf after she shared a report on social media from Human Rights Watch alleging that Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza.
Staff threatened to stage a walkout unless the organization’s leadership addressed concerns about outside interference.
According to reports, tensions persist at ABC over the Gaza conflict months after the initial staff meeting.