Julian Assange’s plea deal with the United States was completed before a U.S. federal judge Wednesday on the U.S. possession of the Mariana Islands, reports Joe Lauria.
Assange on his flight to freedom from London. (WikiLeaks via X)
By Joe Lauria
Aboard Flight CX111 en route to Canberra, Australia
Special to Consortium News
After formalizing his plea agreement with the United States at a U.S. federal court on the Mariana Islands Wednesday, Julian Assange flew to his native Australia, a newly liberated man.
The publisher and journalist, who did more than anyone in the past 20 years to expose U.S. crimes to a world saturated in U.S. propaganda obscuring them, was expected to speak publicly for the first time since his release in Canberra, the Australian capital. [He did not appear at Canberra press conferences on Wednesday and Thursday.]
This was the scene at the airport in Canberra when Assange arrived Wednesday night:
JULIAN ASSANGE IS FREE!!
Watch here: https://t.co/7PlI9fnSMG#AssangeFreed #JournalismIsNotACrime pic.twitter.com/Kpbh63CCCB
— Free Assange – #FreeAssange (@FreeAssangeNews) June 26, 2024
The Plea
Before Federal Judge Ramona Manglona on Wednesday at the court in Saipan, capital of the Northern Marianas, Assange pleaded guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to obtain defense information, a violation of the U.S. Espionage Act.
“With this pronouncement, it appears that you will be able to walk out of this courtroom a free man,” the judge said.
According to an account by Dow Jones news service in The Australian, Manglona asked Assange what he had done to violate the law.
“Working as a journalist, I encouraged my source to provide information that was said to be classified,” Assange replied. “I believed the First Amendment protected that activity, but I accept that it was a violation of the espionage statute.”
Assange then significantly added: “The First Amendment was in contradiction with the Espionage Act, but I accept that it would be difficult to win such a case given all these circumstances.” In other words, I broke the law but the law as written is wrong.
Assange touched on the unconstitutionality inherent in the 1917 Espionage Act in that it criminalizes possession and dissemination of defense information, which conflicts with a journalist’s First Amendment rights to obtain and publish such material.
Technically, Assange was right. His actions, as those of any journalist obtaining and publishing classified information, did violate the Espionage Act because the act contains no exception for journalists.
“Mr. Assange was not going to agree to any disposition of this case that required him to accept allegations that are simply not true,” Barry Pollack, Assange’s U.S. lawyer, told reporters outside the courthouse in Saipan. He explained:
“Mr. Assange did not plead guilty to and would not plead guilty to 17 counts of the Espionage Act, computer hacking. There was a very narrow agreed upon set of facts here and Mr. Assange acknowledges that of course he accepted documents from Chelsea Manning and published many of those documents because it was in the world’s interest that those documents be published. Unfortunately that violates the terms of the Espionage Act.
That’s what we acknowledge today. Mr. Assange also said clearly he believes there should be First Amendment protection for that conduct, but the fact of the matter is, as written, the Espionage Act does not have a defense for the First Amendment.
What he acknowledged is what he has to acknowledge which is true and nothing that he should be ashamed of: Yes he received classified information from Chelsea Manning and he published that information.”
Assange was the first journalist to be indicted under the Espionage Act, though there were two prior attempts by U.S. administrations.
The Franklin D. Roosevelt Justice Department failed to get a grand jury’s indictment against The Chicago Tribune in 1942 and Richard Nixon’s attempt to indict New York Times reporters for the Pentagon Papers fell apart after prosecutorial misconduct in the case against the Times‘ source, Daniel Ellsberg.
The unconstitutionality of the Espionage Act in its conflict with the First Amendment needs to be challenged in court.
[For details see: How US Official Secrets Act Ensnared Julian Assange]
Press conference outside Saipan court with Julian’s US criminal defence attorney Barry Pollack and UK barrister Jennifer Robinson. pic.twitter.com/57T287p8SE
— Stella Assange #FreeAssangeNOW (@Stella_Assange) June 26, 2024
Agrees to Destroy ‘Information’?
The Australian‘s court reporter in Saipan, Mark Rabago, wrote:
“The court heard that Julian Assange must instruct WikiLeaks to destroy the information and provide an affidavit that he has done so and the US lawyers are satisfied that he has done this. Assange told the judge he had read ‘at great length’ and signed the plea agreement while at London’s Stansted airport on June 24.“
If the court heard this, why is it not being more widely reported? Al Jazeera said: “As a condition of his plea, he will be required to destroy information that was provided to WikiLeaks.”
But it is missing from many other courtroom accounts, such as from CNN, the AP, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. As of early Wednesday morning, the files provided to WikiLeaks by Manning are still on the site.
A lot remains unclear. First, what information is being referred to? Is it even technically possible to do, given that WikiLeaks is mirrored on many servers around the world? So many documents have also been copied and written about for more than a decade now.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.
Please Donate to the
Spring Fund Drive!
The governments bent the laws with the full support of the judicial branches of democratic governments.
Mr. Assange is free in no small part due to the veracious and tenacious reporting of Joe Lauria.
I’m writing to say the same thing, and to express my appreciation for the long years of work Joe Lauria has devoted to this cause. I love him for it.
I’m more concerned about the crimminals that Assange exposed through his work “getting away” , i.e. not being procecuted.
Are there not some whistle-blower provisions in all of this?
Our NATO democratic leading elite is as evil and criminal as the Nazi leadership was, I dare say. They are morally bankrupt people.
One upshot revealed so far is there aren’t enough adherents to the supreme law of the land among those charged with upholding it to prevent the Espionage Act from ever again being used to undermine a protected right to a free press. How readily so many put their own agenda above the law & so few say a mumbling word in opposition.
BTW, in that photo Assange looks stronger already. Puts me in mind of when our mother would proclaim fresh air & sunshine to be a healing balm for us kids as she bundled us out of the house into freshly fallen snow to buy herself a few moments of peace. I’ll be danged if she wasn’t right, though.
I suspect that as the deal was being done, the Brits started feeding Julian and treating him much better. This must have started some time ago–maybe one or two months? The last thing the Brits wanted was the world to see an emaciated, failing Assange being wheeled out of jail. I’d also guess one of the reasons the deal finally went through is that they simply didn’t want Julian dying in their hellish prison, despite the US’ desires.
The judge made an error in law accepting this plea deal that says that the First Amendment does not apply to a statute like the Espionage Act. Assange was right to believe that it did because the Supreme Court ruled that it did in the Pentagon Papers case. In that case, the publisher of the New York Times, published the top secret documents leaked to them by Daniel Elsberg. The documents that Assange published after Manning leaked them were not top secret. They had a lower classification. Assange did exactly what the publisher of the New York Times did except he published documents that were not top secret. He had every reason to believe that the First Amendment was still in force as it was when the Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case. A judge in Guam is not supposed to overrule the Supreme Court.
From what little is known at present, it seems to me that this case is far from over. While Julian may be free and back in Australia, he is still highly vulnerable to further action by Australia on the US’ behalf.
If the US is unhappy with the removal of documents from Wikileaks, or any other aspect of Julian’s behaviour, it could just as easily claim he has breached the terms of the ‘deal’ and apply for extradition from Australia.
He is not safe, by any means. While it is unlikely the US will do anything before its November election, it could easily reopen the case afterwards, particularly if Trump is elected and brings Mike Pompeo into his administration.
Julian should move to Russia. He, Stella and his kids will love it. I would not feel secure in any place within the reach of the CIA.
It depends on what Julian does. If he starts doing journalism again, the US may have its Australian kangaroo hop into action. We’ll see.
NO Doubt, It’s f/legal! Done & Dusted!! JULIAN ASSANGE “LIVES” FREE!!!
JULIAN ASSANGE “owned up to” a [SINGLE] charge of conspiracy to obtain defense information, a violation of the U.S. Espionage Act;” &, “Sentenced” for time already “SERVED!” S C O R E! (Obviously, NOT Everyone “AGREES.” I say, FUGG ‘EM)!!!
…. “With this pronouncement, it appears that you will be able to walk out of this courtroom a free man,” Judge Ramona Manglona. A COLOSSAL WIN!!!
“Mr. Assange was not going to agree to any disposition of this case that required him to accept allegations that are simply not true,” Barry Pollack, Assange’s [Spot f/On] U.S. lawyer.
Obviously, “IT’S BETTER TO BE A POSITIVE CRITIC THAN A HYPOCRITE.” For Example, “Big Brother is home. He is installed in the item you just dragged home from the Apple store.” Julian Assange
ONWARD & UPWARDS!! Keep It Lit!”
The real casualty of this long drawn out tawdry episode is the western UK/ US/ Swedish “justice” systems, revealed for what they are as corrupt and politicised tools of persecution and intimidation.
Judges like Baraitser might as well just give up their wigs and gowns and hop into court dressed in kangaroo outfits.
The much trumpeted Rule Of Law is a sick joke.
Free Speech is a sick joke.
Private Property Rights are a sick joke.
Western regimes are as corrupt and repressive as the worst of the banana republics.
Not that that will stop them giving lofty sermons and pious lectures to the rest of the planet about their human rights failings.
Or holding moralising conventions on the need to protect journalists, whilst treating Assange like a latter day Edmund Dantes or Man In The Iron Mask. and while supplying the bombs to their Zionist chums to murder 150 journalists (and their families) in Gaza.
If there were gold medals for hypocrisy, Britain would have a chest ful of them.
But then again, if Britain didn’t have double standards, it wouldn’t have any standards at all.
And all the lickspittle, toadying, obsequious vermin that pass for politicians Down Under are even worse.
thank you Julian for all your work. May you have many years of happiness with your family. (I think the Biden administration wants as many votes for his re-election, so played a part in your release.)
I like the 520k debt they saddled on him on the way out.
I’m not sure if that is real money to him, but the pettiness after monstrous behavior juxtaposes well for future observers!
Julian Assange, arguably the world’s most famous political prisoner, literally from the global north to the global south, is free.
This is huge news, and it is a time to be genuinely happy for Julian and his family, rather than falling into the trap of quick reactions and analyses about the nature of the plea deal and its consequences. One should not reduce the enormity of his freedom to reply to a tweet. Let’s take our time, read about it and understand it first and then react.
For one thing, perhaps the architects of the Assange deal want us to take the defeatist attitude that surprisingly some have already embarked on.
Moreover, Bruce Afran, a US constitutional lawyer and Marjorue Cohn, former president of the US National Lawyers’ Guild both have told Consortium News that Assange’s deal would not jeopardize journalists in the future for reporting and publishing classified information. Furthermore, Assange’s own reaction and future activism will play an important role in understanding the exact nature of his plea deal.
One concerning consequence of this plea deal will undoubtedly be Julian Assange’s future as a journalist.
But considering the character of a towering figure like Julian Assange, even the idea that he is done as a journalist is hard to fathom. Only time will show what will happen to him as an activist. Patience is the name of the game.
Though it took a great sacrifice, Julian Assange has won.
It’s wonderful that Assange is outside of prison.
A “confession” garnered with a pistol at his head cannot mean much, and having him locked up did not serve anything good.
“Contempt of court” has to be nigh inevitable.
Al Jazeera mentioned the order to destroy the material. That cannot be allowed to happen. Everyone in the world who has copies of the material must hide it and keep it safe from the predations of the war criminals.
Congratulations to Mr. Assange. He is a true hero who has paid the price for his heroism.
Indeed!
“The word “security” is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. ”
Pentagon Papers case – US Supreme Court (1971)
hxxps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/
This is highly pertinent, as with your comments below. An Espionage Act cannot be crafted to shield criminal behaviors against the security of the Republic. That is common sense. Additionally, such an act cannot then be used against use of the First Amendment seeking to expose these behaviors, which is the nature of the journalist as watchdog. Everything in this case has sought to emasculate these constitutional values and must be further dug out and exposed. So too with this plea-bargain. It is a fraud seeking to criminalize and cover exactly this sort of necessary exposure to the public.
We are waiting now for Julian’s explanation of his cooperating with a falsehood. Here’s my view beyond his personal need to save himself and reunite with his family. By submitting to the plea-bargain he further exposes the falseness of the security state’s behavior and its case through all these years. So, yes, he is in effect saying, “I did what the charge accuses me of by cooperating with Chelsea Manning and encouraging it, which is being called conspiracy, and I did so under the assumption my action was protected by the first amendment. Should my action have been permitted under the first amendment, and given the nature of what was exposed?”
I don’t believe Julian is caving in to save his butt as is being suggested. His current behavior is forcing into the open a new question. It is a new ploy in his overall quest/mission. He is using one of their own tools to further expose them to public scrutiny. This has a chance of being a brilliant move both saving himself and continuing his work to expose the truth.
What a pity John Pilger didn’t live to see this – but maybe he’s watching, anyway.
Good luck, Mr Assange. Watch your back, always.
“The amendments were offered to curtail and restrict the general powers granted to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches two years before in the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people’s freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly.”
NY Times v. US
hxxps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/
Pentagon papers case – I suggest it be read.
Glad he’s free. Immensely appreciative and grateful for his contributions. He should take all the time he needs to heal and more. Let us not forget the role of Biden, Trump, Keir Starmer and msm in his persecution as prosecution.
So what about freeing LEONARD PELTIER?
“but the fact of the matter is, as written, the Espionage Act does not have a defense for the First Amendment.”
This is an absurd legal statement. This is not how the law works. There does not have to be an explicit statutory defense for the First Amendment to apply. The Constitution trumps all Congress made law.
It should but in its current form the Espionage Act removes the First Amendment protection as Assange’s lawyer said. You are confusing what should be and what is. This is strict liability: did you possess and disseminate classified information, yes or no?
There are no exceptions in the First amendment for national security of the Espionage Act.
Why don’t you report that?
Because it’s not true, that’s why. That is what should be but the Espionage Act does not allow for a public interest or first amendment defense, as Barry Pollack said, who knows a hell of a lot more about Assange’s case. The Espionage Act does make exceptions for the First Amendment and that is its fatal flaw and when sections of it need to be declared unconstitutional. As it is written now, journalists can be prosecuted for what they publish and that is why it needs to be changed.
To have to go back over a century to find a little used law to hit upon a brave honest journalist out of spite that he told the truth about some US crimes shows the fallacy of “American justice “.
Which presidential candidate will run on updating the Espionage Act? Neither of the Duopoly I am confident.
Interesting that this took place on a Marianas Island, famous for Tom DeLay’s lying about forced abortion and foreign contract/slave labor at sweat shops, complete with Made in USA labels. The only garments I purchase guilt-free these days are secondhand. At least something good, and a GREAT GOOD, has come from a part of “USA” that is close to Australia. This whole travesty of justice is such a (not funny) joke as Julian Assange is not American, and his “crimes” didn’t take place on US soil. I am so glad to read here of what he pleaded to, and not the BS charges. I wish him and his family, and journalists everywhere, the best of times in the future.
The Queen of Hearts is alive and well in Washington, D.C., insisting against all evidence to the contrary that what it says is truth, and all else lies. Shades of Bill Clinton arguing before Congress that his guilt or innocence depended on what the definition of is is. As Barbara Bush famously quipped, “Any man who has had oral sex would not forget it.” And all along it has been we, the people, getting screwed. The more things change, the more they remain the same. At least Julian is now free, praise be.
One wonders if Wikileaks is bound to obey Julian’s coerced instructions. I would think not.
If he gives the instructions you, presumeably, are referring to, and they do not obey, what will be the consequencces for J.A?
I agree with you. There can be challenges based on the fact that Julian was in fact tortured in Belmarsh as testified to by, among others, Nils Melzer and Stefania Maurizi. This is not over.
It is just great to see Julian Assange free. Shame on the US and all their crimes, shame on the American kangaroo courts and hypocritical behavior.
The innocent paying the prize for the guilty ones. The entire US political system should be incarcerated for the next 175 years…
I agree with you and I am a U.S. citizen.
It’s “paying the PRICE,” Vera.
The U.S. political system falls abysmally short of the ideals of those who designed it, but it is still one of the better political systems on this very, very, disappointing planet. It not only provides grounds for self-criticism, but sets the standard for other countries to emulate, precisely because it WAS designed according to those ideals.
Vera’s intemperate remark – “The entire US political system should be incarcerated for the next 175 years” shows that she’s merely venting emotionally, for the benefit of others who prefer rant to reason. The problem is, when you design a system that embodies high ideals – including the freedoms of speech and of the press – then you set up expectations that the real world cannot live up to. We Americans want to defend ourselves, but then we pass laws that routinely permit all sorts of abuses – like hiding war crimes under the banner of “classified information” – to protect guilty officials. Assange paid a price for holding us up to our own ideals, but let’s not pretend that this would be a better world if we HAD no such ideals.
“The court heard that Julian Assange must instruct WikiLeaks to destroy the information and provide an affidavit that he has done so and the US lawyers are satisfied that he has done this. Assange told the judge he had read ‘at great length’ and signed the plea agreement while at London’s Stansted airport on June 24.“
Surely he had agreed to this prior to release from Belmarsh. The “at great length” is ambiguous possibly suggesting his struggle with accepting this condition. The information he released cannot be destroyed so evidently this language is masking for an attempt to shut down Wikileaks and shut Assange up from here on out.
Otherwise, his statement on what happened is typical Julian: factual, business-like, with a faint scent of irony. He believed an official act of espionage was covered by the first amendment to explain a “mistake.”
His news conference tomorrow should tell us how far he has gone toward a Guardian-like transformation toward shielding the Establishment–which I do not believe he will do and hope I am right.
He will not. After what he’s been through, to throw in his lot with the murderers? That’s not Julian.
Twenty-four hours later, everything is much clearer. Julian’s conceding to a guilty plea means only admission of the factual reality stemming from a flawed Espionage Act. It does not mean he compromised himself while not guilty according to what should pertain under the principle of the first amendment. My question of a Guardian-like transformation is absurd, and I apologize for it. He recognized his way out here without compromising anything factually, and indeed all the dust-up over the shortcomings of the Espionage Act may lead to revision of it, or to added and needed qualifications. We can hope for this for the future of journalism and the public good when such government legalisms and this whole sordid case are actually being used as cover or masking for criminal behavior. Thank you, Joe Lauria, for assisting us in understanding this case.
In a view from RT as to why the plea deal is bad for journalism
“The plea deal won’t have the precedential effect of a court ruling, but it will still hang over the heads of national security reporters for years to come… It’s purely symbolic,” Seth Stern, the director of advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), said in a statement. “The administration could’ve easily just dropped the case but chose to instead legitimize the criminalization of routine journalistic conduct and encourage future administrations to follow suit.”
hxxps://www.rt.com/news/599956-julian-assange-journalism-freedom/
This site has several articles on Assange worth looking at.
I’ve been following the case since 2010. I know all this.
In Service of Hegemonic Deep State Expedience, Open, Transparent Journalism, and Truth, have now been permanently paralyzed, if not utterly incapacitated.
It’s the same loss for humankind, as is the world’s most prolific activist, linguist, philosopher, Noem Chomsky being struck down by a stroke.
Yet, as an ancient Greek poet stated it: where there is (a) life, there is hope.
The world’s most courageous, living journalist, Julian Assange, gets to breathe his own life again!
A moving laudatory oration for Julian Assange from the genius heart and mind of Yanis Varoufakis
hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rHHvIkTOSs
What power attempted to do to the man Julian Assange is what that same power structure attempted to do to Galileo Galilei nearly five centuries ago. He too had to say that he was wrong.
That malign power has yet to concede “one inch” in all these years of ‘human’progress.
Which is the reason that we the people must never concede. Ever.
Nothing is permanent. Even the Himalayas are not permanent. Your pessimism is misplaced. Consternation is a more appropriate attitude. The fight continues. It must continue if we refuse to be slaves. The criminal warmongers must be brought to book. We the people must eventually make it too hot for the criminals to survive. Only the international working class can do this. We are not giving up.