The CIA’s Chinese Walls 174

It is not in dispute that the CIA is in possession of Julian Assange’s legal and medical files seized from the Ecuadorean Embassy, including correspondence and drafting by his lawyers on his defence against extradition to the USA on Espionage charges. The defence submitted evidence of this in court. After Julian was arrested in the Ecuadorean Embassy and removed, all of his personal possessions were illegally seized by the Ecuadorean authorities, including his files and his IT equipment. These were then shipped back to Ecuador by diplomatic bag. There, they were handed over to the CIA.

These facts were agreed in court in Assange’s extradition hearing by the US authorities. However, they claimed that the proceedings were not tainted by the fact that the prosecuting state had seized all the defendant’s legal papers, because “Chinese walls” within the US government meant that the CIA would not pass any of the information on to the Justice Department.

Frankly, if anybody believes that, then I have a bridge to sell you. In any court in any Western jurisdiction against any other defendant but Assange, the seizure of the defence’s legal files by the state seeking extradition would in itself be sufficient for the case immediately to be thrown out as hopelessly tainted. That is without adding the fact that the CIA was also secretly video recording Assange – through the UC Global security firm – and was specifically recording his meetings with his lawyers.

As it happens, UC Global also recorded for the CIA several of my own meetings with Julian, and I shall next month be travelling to Madrid to give evidence in the criminal trial of David Morales, CEO of UC Global, for illegal spying (UC Global is a Spanish company). At least, I shall be if I am not in prison myself as a result of the suppression of my own reporting of the defence in the Alex Salmond case.

I ask one simple question. The CIA put substantial effort into recording Assange’s meetings with his legal team, and UC Global employees also gave evidence they were instructed physically to follow his lawyers, who in addition suffered burglaries and other intrusions. The CIA put effort into collecting specifically his legal papers from Quito. If there are effective “Chinese walls” preventing the stolen and eavesdropped material on his legal defence being given or explained to the American government prosecutors, then who is the market for these legal papers? Who is the CIA providing them to? What other purpose are the CIA supposed to be seizing his legal papers for?

There is no legitimate answer to these questions. I find breathtaking the UK court’s insouciance about the most gross and deliberate violation of attorney/client privilege of which the human imagination is able to conceive. Yet this is just one of the numerous breaches of procedure in the Assange case.

I am frequently asked about the current legal situation. The USA has submitted its appeal to the English and Welsh High Court against the decision not to extradite. The defence have submitted their response to the appeal. In doing so they have also submitted a counter-appeal against the many deeply concerning points on which Baraitser ruled extradition was possible, before ruling it out on the sole grounds of medical history and conditions of custody.

The situation now is complex. The first thing to be said is that the High Court has not yet ruled that the United States government’s grounds for appeal have sufficient legal merit to be considered, and thus accepted the case and set a hearing date. This is taking much longer than usual, and hope is growing that the High Court may rule that the United States’ grounds for appeal are too legally weak to meet the bar of a hearing. If that is the case, Julian could suddenly be released very quickly.

If the appeal is accepted, a hearing date will be set and the legal grapevine thinks that could be as early as July – much quicker than usual. We then have the further complication that the counter-appeal by the defence is not an automatic process, indeed it is exceptional. The normal procedure would be that the High Court would hear the US appeal on the medical and conditions of imprisonment points and the defence response, and rule on that. Should the US appeal succeed, the High Court would send that judgement back down to judge Baraitser, who would reconvene Westminster Magistrates Court and order the extradition. The defence could then appeal to the High Court against the extradition on all the other grounds, which are numerous but headed by breach of the provision on no political extradition of the Treaty under which the extradition is taking place.

The whole process would then start again, which would take us well into 2022 with Julian still in jail. The defence hope the High Court would instead take the counter-appeal at the same time and hear all the arguments together, but it is by no means a given the High Court will agree. If the High Court considers the US appeal weak there is a danger that the High Court would also think a hearing on all the other points – which would last weeks – would be an unnecessary waste of its time. Which leads us to the paradox that a quick victory for Julian on health grounds that sees him released, would leave in place as a precedent the awful aspects of Baraitser’s ruling on extradition for political offence being lawful, and on the dismissal of Article X freedom of speech arguments, and the acceptance of US universal jurisdiction over publishing of US classified information worldwide.

A further paradox which may trouble us in future is that if released, and if Biden as now is determined to continue the persecution of whistleblowers and of Wikileaks, Julian Assange could find himself trapped in England. Anywhere else he goes, including his native Australia, he could be the subject of a further US extradition request leading to imprisonment. This is the dilemma of my friend Lauri Love, whose lawyers advised him against even accepting my invitation to visit Scotland, in case a new US extradition request is issued in any other jurisdiction he visits. Lauri is only safe from extradition in England and Wales.

There is a further danger that the British Home Office might immediately on release seek to deport Julian to Australia on the grounds his UK visa has expired, and that the Australian government may imprison him there in pursuit of a further US extradition request. So in aiming for a situation where Julian can work, run Wikileaks, and contribute his remarkable talent and intelligence to further expansion of freedom of speech and the internet and empowering of ordinary citizens, we still all have work to do.


Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

174 thoughts on “The CIA’s Chinese Walls

1 2
  • Mark Golding

    Respectfully I repeat unless we unleash intention to force this obscene government to give Julian Assange some love and respect, some fundamental attention and care, some peace from mental torture, we will learn that Julian Assange has died in captivity, has passed leaving us all weak and useless. That is the stark reality.

    • Wikikettle

      Mark Golding. Indeed, our thoughts are continually on Julian’s incarceration. It is on all our conscience, which few, Craig, dare to prick. As to his jailers, they will forever be written about and remembered in the histories are assured that damming epitaph.

    • nevermind

      Absolutely agree Mark. The stark reality created with widespread disillusion could be intentional, they know the psychological black hole they are creating for truth speakers, journalists and the wider peace craving public, should this bleak untimely event ever happen.
      I hope he is getting enough hope and love from his partner and children.

    • Stevie Boy

      The state can only get away with this obscenity because of the willing compliance of the MSM.
      There is no way for honest people to discuss Julian’s case in the public domain. The MSM have effectively buried him.

      • Pyewacket

        Stevie, the MSM have effectively buried him…aka, “Giving it Nelson’s Eye”, and it’s not the only topic obscured by their selective myopia.

      • Goose

        Not just the MSM either.

        Big tech is also hand in glove with those seeking to control & suppress news. As reported today: Facebook blocked a hashtag calling for the resignation of India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, hiding over 12,000 posts critical of the government’s handling of the Covid-19. Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft could’ve stood together against such censorship and govt manipulation.

        The big problem with often granular management of information and political censorship, either through automated algorithms and/or ML, or even executive decisions, is it’s hard to go back. It started under Trump because the West coast techies despised Trump and his supporters, they ‘wanted to do something’ , pressed by leading Democrats. The ‘we’re platforms not publishers’, ie., neutral conduits of information/opinion was a perfectly valid position to take, but the tech companies have destroyed that defence.

      • josh R

        Stevie Boy

        “The state can only get away with this obscenity because of the willing compliance of the MSM.”

        yes but no but…..perhaps that’s not the ‘only’ way they get away with it.
        Perhaps it’s at least equally true that they get away with it because we let them.

        The fella was held under siege for years in the Ecuadorian embassy, then banged up in maximum security for a couple more whilst we’ve gone about our lives as normal(ish), knowing full well the illegality, immorality & typical vicious nature of the State’s actions, if we cared enough to ‘delve’ into the narrative.

        I was put in mind of comments made by Maj Gen Butler in his writings about the fascist coup attempt in the 1930s. He was equally vociferous in condemning the perception management & self serving nature of the oligarchical media, so nothing new in that sentiment & I’m sure innumerable other examples can be found in contemporary and bygone histories.

        Whilst, as a civilised bunch, we would like to think & hope that the institutions of state would correct this injustice, at some point maybe we have to recognise that this is not the case. That we then have to say “Enough!” (¡Ya Basta!) & shoulder the responsibility of challenging & ending this injustice directly.
        By recognising that ultimately, “We” are the State & when it is broken there is a time for us to act more directly & decisively.

        To imagine that a prerequisite to attaining justice is the altruistic benevolence of an entirely discredited & largely oligarchical/establishment media, is a fruitless distraction & excuse for inaction*.

        “Yet what you need is not demonstrations, rallies or wide associations, all of them are important. What you need is direct action. The sooner people understand that, the sooner we’ll begin to change things.”
        — Arthur Scargill

        I know there’s an unhelpful simplicity to my comment, that not all ‘action’ is wise or called for & that the MSM does indeed define the “public discourse”, when we let ’em. But there’s also a simple truth to it too, that systematic change for the better rarely comes from above or without the struggle, hardships, deprivations & ingenuity of those ‘below’.

        Individually we can’t do everything, but we can do something.
        Together we can do anything.

        *I’m also put in mind of CM’s book (think it was Murder in Samarkand) when he described the massive support of a wide range of journos when the government were attacking him. Ahhhh, nice to be reminded of how it was, how it could be & how it very occasionally is.

  • nevermind

    ‘Today the Government of Iran, in an apparent move to get Clemency for Julian Assange, after being incarcerated in Belmarsh under what is descibed by the UN rapporteur on torture, Nick Melzer, as physical and psychological torture conditions, made representation to the foreign office and to the UN in a bid to have him freed into the arms of his children and family.’

    The FO declined to comment….allegedly.

1 2

Comments are closed.