person:michael ratner

US government still hunting #WikiLeaks as Obama targets #whistleblowers | Media | The Guardian
▻http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/05/us-government-still-hunting-wikileaks-obama-targets-whistleblowers

WikiLeaks’s lawyer, Michael Ratner, said the disclosure was significant because, coming from such a high court, it left no doubt about the US government’s intentions.

“We are talking about a serious, multi-subject long-term investigation of WikiLeaks and its people,” Ratner said. “This confirms in spades that the US authorities are coming after WikiLeaks and want to close it down.”

The court ruling arrived in response to a freedom of information request from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (Epic). About a year after the Manning leaks, Epic requested from the DoJ and #FBI all records regarding any individuals who had been targeted for surveillance “for support for or interest in WikiLeaks”.

In her ruling, the judge ordered the national security division of the DoJ to redouble its search of its files for documents that might fit the freedom of information request. But she sided with the federal agencies in granting them an exemption to the rules, so that they did not have to hand over any material to Epic – on grounds that doing so might interfere with their law enforcement activities.

The FBI and criminal division argued before the court that the release of their files “would allow targets of the investigation to evade law enforcement”. Rothstein agreed that “the government’s declarations, especially when viewed in light of the appropriate deference to the executive on issues of national security, may satisfy this burden.”

(...)

Some aspects of the FBI’s investigation into WikiLeaks have already become public. In January 2011 it was revealed that the US government had ordered #Twitter to hand over private messages from a then WikiLeaks volunteer, the Icelandic member of parliament Birgitta Jónsdóttir.

Earlier this year, it emerged that a similar demand for information had been imposed on #Google relating to three WikiLeaks staffers, including the British citizen Sarah Harrison.

Lift Assange out of legal limbo – Michael Ratner
▻http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/06/17/assange-wikileaks-espionage-ecuador-edward-snowden-column/10707289

In the two years Assange has spent cloistered in the Ecuadorian Embassy, the British extradition law under which he was ordered to Sweden to face allegations of sexual misconduct has changed. With this change, the allegations that originally secured Assange’s extradition order to Sweden would no longer suffice. Now, a decision to charge Assange with a crime is necessary for extradition, but Sweden has never made that decision.

That hasn’t kept Britain from ignoring Assange’s right to asylum by clinging to the now-invalid law. Instead, British police and security forces keep watch on the entrance, windows and surroundings of the Ecuadorian Embassy around the clock, which has cost $10 million.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to investigate Assange and might have secretly charged him without his knowledge. A grand jury empaneled in 2010 remains open, keeping Assange in legal limbo. Under such conditions, leaving the embassy would mean a stop in Sweden before Assange is given a one-way ticket to a U.S. prison to likely face inhumane treatment and a sentence similar to Manning’s, including extended solitary confinement.

Similar harsh treatment and excessive punishments haven’t applied to the people in government who perpetrated the crimes exposed by these whistle-blowers and published by WikiLeaks. In fact, people such as national intelligence director James Clapper, who lied under oath to Congress, have avoided consequences altogether.

UN Inspection a Figleaf to Justify Air Strike on Syria
▻http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/09/10-0

Still, European governments, and particularly France, have said they would not endorse a military strike until the U.N. report is released. French President Francois Hollande was quoted as saying last week his government would not act militarily before the U.N. inspectors presented their findings on the Aug. 12 attack in Syria.

According to one published report, the U.N. findings “would enable European governments to tell their constituents that there has been U.N. involvement before military action, and it would not appear to tie the Americans’ hands."

Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, told IPS many of those governments prefer to support the United States and will use the “fig leaf of the U.N. inspections” and its conclusion – assuming it states chemical weapons are used – to give that support.

“The claim will be that the U.N. is involved and somehow that means it’s a legal attack. Nothing could be further from the truth or law,” he said.

Syria War Resolution Contradicts Constitution, International Law | Accuracy.Org
▻http://www.accuracy.org/release/syria-war-resolution-contradicts-constitution-international-law

MICHAEL RATNER:

“Almost the only good thing about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution [PDF] on Syria is that the vote to pass it was not overwhelming and that three Democrats abandoned the administration. Perhaps the worst single clause in it was a reaffirmation of the illegal power Obama claims he has to bomb Syria without congressional approval: ‘the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States.’ No such authority exists — except in self-defense — and the vague term ‘national security interests’ hardly meets that standard.

“The operative clause setting forth the terms of the authorization — the basis on which military force can be employed — is open ended and vague enough to allow Obama a blank check to make war on Syria: Obviously, allowing Obama to use armed force as he ‘determines to be necessary and appropriate’ is not a limitation. That open ended grant is not helped by the claimed limitation to use such force ‘to degrade Syria’s capacity to use such force in the future” or to “deter Syria’s use of such weapons.’ Obama could decide that all-out war including the overthrow of the government of Syria is necessary to meet those objectives. He could also decide that those allies who supply Syria with weapons that have a dual use need to be stopped. Does that meaning bombing Iran and Russia if they are supplying such weapons? This is not a stretch. We have the example of the interpretation given by both Bush and Obama to the AUMF regarding the perpetrators of 9/11. Although supposedly restricted to those involved in that crime, that authorization has led to war almost anywhere the administration wants: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia.