Prez, GOP overrule pleas not to bother spooks

Republicans in both the House and the Senate are unhappy that Attorney General William Barr wants a simple reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with sources telling National Review that GOP critics of FISA are “adamant” that serious reforms must be implemented before the reauthorization.

Barr reportedly told GOP senators during a lunch Tuesday that they should move to reauthorize the expiring portions of FISA’s surveillance powers as he continues to implement internal reforms. The intelligence community also supports a clean reauthorization prior to the implementation of significant reforms. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, reportedly favors a clean reauthorization.

Numerous Democrats are also in favor of reforms, as is President Trump, who tweeted an affirmation of Rep. Jim Jordan's tweet that the secret spy court must be reformed.

The intelligence community -- a major force behind the Deep State (=the System =the Establishment) -- usually gets its way in terms of spook power versus constitutional liberties. But despite the opposition of McConnell and Barr, chances look strong that changes are imminent. Not only are Republicans anxious that the intelligence system is never used against a presidential candidate again, there is no doubt that many Democrats -- despite their public positions -- see the writing on the wall: that spooks could just as easily be turned against them.

Even so, the question is: will reforms be hard-nosed or mere window-dressing?

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has been among those adamant on the need to rein in the Foreign Intelligence Act (FISA) court.

Paul tweeted that Trump told him Wednesday that he wants Congress to pass FISA reform before it reauthorizes portions of it that expire in March.

“I’m pleased he is urging FISA reform NOW – and not a reauthorization of the current Patriot Act,” Paul tweeted, adding that he was working with Rep. Jim Jordan, R., Ohio, and others “to make these needed reforms happen now!”

In a video, Paul asserts that Trump agrees with him that the court should never again be allowed to authorize clandestine surveillance of election campaigns or of any American.

Paul denounces FISA on surveillance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLHyUPhYNVI&feature=youtu.be

In a statement, Paul said, "As a senator, I have pushed back hard against a status quo that empowers the surveillance state to spy on innocent Americans.  The abuses of such a system have been clear over the years, including officials even spying on President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign."

He added, "In my latest video, I looked at the current chapter in this debate, as Congress once again considers reauthorizing certain expiring provisions" of the FISA court that allow for "roving wiretaps, greater access to our most personal information, and targeting individuals on mere suspicion -- all authorized by a secret court and without our knowledge."

Paul declared, "History has repeatedly proven just how dangerous it can be when we sacrifice our rights to create a temporary -- and ultimately false -- sense of security.

In other comments, Paul said, "As a part of the upcoming debate, I will introduce legislation to make sure secret courts can no longer spy on presidential campaigns, campaigns for federal or state office, or on individuals who exercise their First Amendment right by becoming members of an organization advocating for certain public policy agendas.

"Fear and complacency cannot be what influences our lawmakers’ decisions any longer," he noted, pointing out that we "cannot pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights we will enforce."  

Jordan tweeted Wednesday that “we can’t simply reauthorize the system” after the Horowitz report, which detailed how the FBI, under James Comey as director, had made 17 errors related to its Crossfire Hurricane investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign, which relied significantly on FISA warrants. Trump then retweeted Jordan, saying “They spied on my campaign!”

 

Paul assails YouTube for taking down video

Speech on Senate floor mentioned
two spooks named in news report

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is putting the heat on Alphabet's YouTube for blocking a video in which Paul named Eric Ciaramella, a CIA analyst, as a person of interest with respect to President Trump's impeachment trial.

“It is a chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as YouTube decide to censor speech. Now, even protected speech, such as that of a senator on the Senate floor, can be blocked from getting to the American people. This is dangerous and politically biased. Nowhere in my speech did I accuse anyone of being a whistleblower, nor do I know the whistleblower’s identity. Apparently, YouTube has taken it upon itself to decide what questions can even be asked in the public debate, including on the Senate floor.”

Paul’s speech, given during the allotted time for senators to express their thoughts on the impeachment trial, focused on the surveillance state’s abuse of its powers. Paul read the following question:

Manager [Adam] Schiff and Counsel for the President, are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Sean Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?

Paul was referring to a RealClearInvestigations report that Ciamarella and Misko had conspired while both were on the National Security Council to have President Trump removed from office. The report quotes a number of their associates as saying that they had spoken of such a maneuver.

Though Paul chastised YouTube in his Feb. 13 statement, another media giant that blocked his speech was Fox News, which reported that Fox had caused a rumpus in the Senate -- without permitting the names "Ciaramella" or "Misko" to appear in its report.

While Fox has played the role of pro-Trump advocate, the media firm's refusal to publish two names that were spoken on the floor of the Senate is nothing short of bizarre. Its reporters and commentators bash "the Deep State" all day long. Yet, is not "Deep State" stamped all over what is evidently a secret media agreement to black out newsworthy names?

What part of NO don't the feds understand?

Publishing official documents that may put lives at risk is possibly a crime in Britain. But it is not a crime in the United States, especially not during a period when war has not been declared by Congress.

Hence, federal prosecution claims that Julian Assange put lives at risk are irrelevant as a matter of U.S. Constitutional law. In addition, the press in virtually every free country puts the lives of unconvicted (hence innocent) suspects and victims at risk by publishing details that might be used by malevolent persons. Such is the price of press freedom.

There is on the books a law that makes it a crime to publicly expose the name of a covert CIA or U.S. intelligence operative. But, there must have been a deliberate decision to do so. If a CIA operative's name is disclosed amid a cache of documents, it is difficult to say that someone made a specific decision to unmask that operative. In addition, the law's constitutionality is highly suspect.

The First Amendment reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress made the CIA law abridging speech and press after Philip Agee, a former CIA employee, wrote a book that exposed a CIA officer's name. That officer was murdered subsequent to publication and it was assumed that Agee's book was the primary cause, though a moment's thought about the subtleties and chicaneries of the intelligence underworld should cast at least some doubt on that assumption.

Assange's superseding indictment (the first one laughably claimed he was a terrorist) cites statute 18:793 of the Espionage Act, which begins, "(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation..."

What exactly does "intent or reason to believe" that the information will bring "injury" to the United States or give "advantage" to a foreign nation mean? In the case of a spy passing information to an enemy government during wartime, there is little ambiguity. It's hard to say the same about a citizen journalist or public-spirited activist.

Even if "injury" occurred, how can one possibly assume that a citizen-journalist intended to harm anyone, even if it is said after the fact that some people were killed as a result of publication? A spy intends injury. Can that easily be said of a public-spirited publisher? The whole point of WikiLeaks was to restore democracy by letting the common people see what their governments do in the dark. Now, you may say that that is a foolish and irrational idea, but having a silly idea does not make a person evil. (In fact, the treatment of Assange can be fairly compared to the diabolical suppressions of free speech during the Dark Ages. Assange is the real witch hunt victim.)

In any event, in a political situation, "injury" and "advantage" tend to be in the minds of the beholders. Many citizens of the United States believe that their republic was strengthened by the WikiLeaks revelations. Just because public officials hold the opposite opinion does not make their opinion intrinsically valid. What nations gained advantages that could be easily defined and measured as a result of the disclosures? In fact, the diplomatic cable disclosures helped fuel the Arab Spring, kindling the hopes of many for democracy of the sort enjoyed in America and Britain.

The disclosure that got the most attention was that the United States military had suppressed evidence of an atrocity carried out in the heat of combat in Iraq. The journalist Seymour Hersh was hailed when he exposed the My Lai massacre by going onto U.S. military bases in order to begin collecting information that surely would injure the reputation of the United States during another undeclared war and that would benefit the Communists by bolstering their propaganda. Yet no one thought to use the Espionage Act against him. For one thing, injuring the reputation of the government was not sufficient reason to prosecute.

From the title of the video published by WikiLeaks, Collateral Murder, I have an opinion that Assange, like many a person who has never been in combat, did not comprehend the stress that men and women experience in a firefight. I felt that he had not been sufficiently compassionate toward the helicopter crew members, who doubtless suffered great remorse for many years after the event.

Yet, I did not blame Assange. His was a typical civilian response. And I certainly believed that the public had benefited from seeing what happens when presidents order the beginning of hostilities as if their own lives don't depend on it -- which they don't.

The most important point is that the Espionage Act statute leaves it to public officials to decide when a disclosure of the truth "injures" the United States. Further, the act permits prosecutors to read the minds of journalists and activists to discern whether they intended such injury. And, there is absolutely no doubt that the act, especially when applied to journalists and citizens who are not clearly working as enemy spies, is in direct collision with the First Amendment, which takes precedence. In spite of Mike Pompeo's bombastic claims, federal prosecutors have never alleged that Assange is a witting spy for the Kremlin or any other government.

So there is no basis for a U.S. prosecution -- which is why Chelsea Manning is being held by federal prosecutors in a federal pen. The feds are trying to force her to talk: to turn against Assange in a way that would substantiate the charges of participating in a conspiracy to commit computer fraud as listed in statutes 18:371 and 18:1031. Except for a brief period of release, Manning has been held for about a year, a draconian maneuver that discloses the desperation of prosecutors to turn Manning so that they can get a real criminal case against Assange. If prosecutors were confident of their current case, they would almost certainly have freed Manning months ago.

Prosecution claims that Assange is disqualified from First Amendment protection because he is not a U.S. citizen are disingenuous. The amendment says "no law" can abridge free speech and press. It says nothing about citizenship. By the prosecution's reasoning, it would be fair to say that, because Assange is not a U.S. citizen, the Espionage Act does not apply to him.

Time to end the witch hunts and restore democracy both in Britain and America.

---

Please see Prospect magazine's take
https://prospect.org/justice/julian-assange-espionage-act-1917-freedom-press/

Bloomberg aided opioid czars with PR -- report

ProPublica spotlights 'arrangement' among billionaires
https://www.propublica.org/article/bloomberg-sacklers-opioid-crisis-public-relations?utm_source=pardot&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=majorinvestigations

Obama gives Biden cold shoulder, despite GOP attack

Withholds crucial endorsement as make-or-break S.C. primary looms

Despite a bruising GOP attack on Joe Biden in South Carolina, Barack Obama is adamantly refusing to endorse Biden's bid for the presidency.

An attack ad, created by the Committee to Defend the President, plays audio of Obama talking about "plantation politics" and police brutality, as well as poor housing and jobs for African Americans. The words come from Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father.

While the recording of Obama plays, on-screen text displays assertions about Biden's record on racial issues.

Though Obama's lawyers talked tough about the ad, the former president continued to stonewall Biden on a much-desired endorsement. Obama appears, in the eyes of some, to be attempting to suppress African American turnout for Biden in the South Carolina primary. Yet, Obama's lawyers are trying to turn the tables by accusing the committee of the same stratagem.

Obama is reported to have tried to dissuade Biden from tossing his hat into the ring. Obama's White House had taken press heat on the Ukrainian activities of Biden's son, Hunter. As vice president, Biden had no constitutionally required foreign policy duties and so had an obligation to step away from work on Ukraine and China once his son began to enrich himself in connection with government-linked entities in those countries.

Though the Obama White House tried to put the best face on the Biden sweetheart deals, since that matter went public, Obama has been careful about praising Biden.

The highly embarrassing disclosures gained widespread renewed attention before and during President Trump's impeachment trial.

Political science 101

Thesis: Represent the working class.

Antithesis: Represent the non-working poor and the oligarchs.

Crisis: The Democratic Party experiences the clash of competing agendas and principles.

Synthesis? Will a new political force emerge from the collision of polar opposites -- even if Trump retains support of much of the working class and is possibly re-elected?

Amnesty campaigns for Assange's freedom

Loose him and let him go!
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/02/usuk-drop-charges-and-halt-extradition-of-julian-assange/

Who is Trump?

Quick backgrounder on Trump before 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZhhCLpVAE8

Pressure builds against 'fake spy case against Assange

Pressure builds against fake spy case against Assange
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3brZWiA5fM

Politico a paid-off Communist front -- Carlson

Politico publishes Red spy agency materials
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6133987466001#sp=show-clips

It's Latin to me!

Latest from Universal Copy Desk:
https://universalcopydesk.blogspot.com/2020/02/its-latin-to-me.html

Oligarchs team up to push globalism

• Subscribe
• Past Issues
• RSS
• Translate

View this email in your browser   The Koch-Soros Quincy Project: A Train Wreck of Neocon and 'Humanitarian' Interventionists -By Daniel McAdams Those hoping the non-interventionist cause would be given some real muscle if a couple of oligarchs who've made fortunes from global interventionism team up and pump millions into Washington think tanks will be sorely disappointed by the train wreck that is the Koch/Soros alliance. The result thus far has not been a tectonic shift in favor of a new direction, with new faces and new ideas, but rather an opportunity for these same old Washington think tanks, now flush with even more money, to re-brand their pet interventionisms as "restraint." The flagship of this new alliance, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, was sold as an earth-shattering breakthrough - an "odd couple" of "left-wing" Soros and "right-wing" Koch boldly tossing differences aside to join together and "end the endless wars." That organization is now up and running and it isn't pretty. To begin with, the whole premise is deeply flawed. George Soros is no "left-winger" and Koch is no "right-winger." It's false marketing, like the claim that drinking Diet Coke will make you skinny. Both are globalist oligarchs who continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to create the kind of world where the elites govern with no accountability except to themselves, and "the interagency," rather than an elected President of the US, makes US foreign policy. As libertarian intellectual Tom Woods once famously quipped, "No matter whom you vote for, you always wind up getting John McCain." That is exactly the world Koch and Soros want. It's a world of Davos with fangs, not Mainstreet, USA. A 'New Vision'? Anyone doubting that Quincy is just a mass re-branding effort for the same failed foreign policies of the past two decades need look no further than that organization's first big public event, a February 26th conference with Foreign Policy Magazine, to explore "A New Vision for America in the World." Like pouring old wine into new bottles, this "new vision" is being presented by the very same people and institutions who gave us the "old vision" - you know, the one they pretend to oppose. How should anyone interested in restraining foreign policy - let alone actual non-interventionism - react to the kick-off presentation of the Quincy Institute's conference, "Perspective on U.S. Global Leadership in the 21st Century," going to disgraced US General David Petraeus? Petraeus is, among many other things, an architect of the disastrous and failed "surge" policy in Iraq. He is still convinced (at least as of a few years ago) that "we won" in Iraq...but that we dare not end the occupation lest we lose what we "won." How's that for "restraint"? While head of the CIA, he teamed up with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to develop and push the brilliant idea of directly and overtly training and equipping al-Qaeda and other jihadists to overthrow the secular government of Bashar Assad. How's that for "restraint"? When a tape leaked of Fox News contributor Kathleen T. McFarland meeting with Petraeus at the behest of then-Fox Chairman Roger Ailes to convince him to run for US president, Petraeus told her that the CIA in his view is "a national asset...a treasure." He then went on to speak favorably of the CIA's role in Libya. But the absurdity of leading the conference with such an unreconstructed warmongering interventionist is only the beginning of the trip down the Quincy conference rabbit hole. Rogues' Gallery of Washington's Worst Shortly following the disgraced general is a senior official from the German Marshal Fund, Julianne Smith, to give us "A New Vision for America's Role in the World." Her organization, readers will recall, is responsible for some of the most egregious warmongering propaganda. The German Marshal Fund launched and funds the Alliance for Securing Democracy, an organization led by such notable proponents of "restraint" as neoconservative icon William Kristol, John McCain Institute head David Kramer, Michael "Trump is an agent of Putin" Morell, and, among others, the guy who made millions out of scaring the hell out of Americans, former Homeland-Security-chief-turned-airport-scanner-salesman Michael Chertoff. The Alliance for Securing Democracy was responsible for the discredited "Hamilton 68 Dashboard," a magic tool they claimed would seek and destroy “Russian bots” in the social media. After the propaganda value of such a farce had been reaped, Alliance fellow Clint Watts admitted the whole thing was bogus. Moving along, so as not to cherry pick the atrocities in this conference, moderating the section on the Middle East is one "scholar," Mehdi Hasan, who actually sent a letter to Facebook demanding that the social media company censor more political speech! He has attacked what he calls "free speech fundamentalists." Joining the "Regional Spotlight: Asia-Pacific" is Patrick Cronin of the thoroughly - and proudly - neoconservative Hudson Institute. Cronin's entire professional career consists of position after position at the center of Washington's various "regime change" factories. From a directorial position at the mis-named US Institute for Peace to "third-ranking position" at the US Agency for International Development to "senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the [neoconservative] Center for a New American Security." This is a voice of "restraint"? Later, the segment on "Ending Endless War" features at least two speakers who absolutely oppose the idea. Rosa Brooks, Senior Fellow at the "liberal interventionist" New America Foundation, wrote not long ago that, "There’s No Such Thing as Peacetime." In the article she argued the benefits of "abandon[ing] the effort to draw increasingly arbitrary lines between peacetime and wartime and instead focus[ing] on developing institutions and norms capable of protecting rights and rule-of-law values at all times." In other words, war is endless so man up and get used to it. This may be the key for how you end endless war. Just stop calling it "war." Brooks' fellow panelist, Tom Wright, hails from the epicenter of liberal interventionism, the Brookings Institution, where he is director of the "Center on the United States and Europe." Brookings loves "humanitarian interventions" and has published pieces attempting to convince us that the attack on Libya was not a mistake. Wright himself is featured in the current edition of the Council on Foreign Relations' publication Foreign Affairs arguing that old interventionist shibboleth that the disaster in Iraq was not caused by the US invasion, but rather by Obama's withdrawal. This Quincy Institute champion of "restraint" concludes his latest piece arguing that: Now is not the time for a revolution in U.S. strategy. The United States should continue to play a leading role as a security provider in global affairs.  How revolutionary! The moderator of that final panel in the upcoming Quincy Institute first conference is Loren DeJonge Schulman, a deputy director at the above-named Center for a New American Security. Before joining that neoconservative think tank, Schulman served as Senior Advisor to National Security Advisor Susan Rice! Among her other international crimes, readers will recall that Rice was a chief architect of the US attack on Libya. Schulman's entire career is, again, in the service of, alternatively, the war machine and the regime change machine. The Quincy Institute's first big event, which it bills as a showcase for a new foreign policy of "restraint," is in fact just another gathering of Washington's usual warmongers, neocons, and "humanitarian" interventionists. Quincy has been received with gushing praise from people who should know better. Any of those gushers who look at this first Quincy conference and continue to maintain that a revolution in foreign policy is afoot are either lying to us or lying to themselves. But Wait...There's More! Sadly, the fallout extends beyond just this particular new institute and this particular event. Those who continue to push the claim that Koch and Soros are changing their spots and now supporting restraint and non-interventionism should be made to explain why the most egregiously warmongering and interventionist organizations are finding themselves on the receiving end of oligarch largese. Just days ago a glowing article in Politico detailed the recipients of millions of Koch dollars to promote "restraint." Who is leading the Koch brigades in the battle for a non-interventionist, "restrained" foreign policy? Politico reveals: Libertarian business tycoon Charles Koch is handing out $10 million in new grants to promote voices of military restraint at American think tanks, part of a growing effort by Koch to change the U.S. foreign policy conversation. The grants, details of which were shared exclusively with POLITICO, are being split among four institutions: the Atlantic Council; the Center for the National Interest; the Chicago Council on Global Affairs; and the RAND Corporation. The Atlantic Council has been pushing US foreign policy toward war with Russia for years, pumping endless false propaganda and neocon lies to fuel the idea that Russia is engaged in an "asymmetric battle" against the US, that the mess in Ukraine was the result of a Russian out-of-the-blue invasion rather than an Obama Administration coup d'etat, that Russia threw the elections to Putin's agent Trump, and that Moscow is seeking to to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. The Atlantic Council's "Disinfo Portal," a self-described "one-stop interactive online portal and guide to the Kremlin’s information war," is raw, overt war propaganda. It is precisely the kind of war propaganda that has fueled three years of mass hysteria called "Russiagate," which though proven definitively to be an utter fraud, continues to animate most of Washington's thinking on the Left and Right to this day. The Atlantic Council, through something it calls a "Digital Forensic Research Lab," works with giant social media outlets to identify and ban any independent or alternative news outlets who deviate from the view that the US is besieged by enemies, from Syria to Iran to Russia to China and beyond, and that therefore it must continue spending a trillion dollars per year to maintain its role as the unipolar hyperpower. Thus, the Atlantic Council - a US government funded entity - colludes with social media to silence any deviation from US government approved foreign policy positions. And these are the kinds of organizations that Koch and Soros claim are going to save us from Washington's interventionist foreign policy? Equally upsetting is the "collateral damage" that the Koch/Soros alliance and its love child Quincy hath wrought. To see once-vibrant and reliably non-interventionist upstarts like The American Conservative Magazine (TAC) lured away from the vision of its founders, Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos, to slip into the warm Hegelian embrace of well-funded compromise is truly heartbreaking. It is to witness the soiling of that once-brave publication's vindication for being right about Iraq War 2.0 while virtually all of Washington was wrong. Incidentally, and to add insult to injury, it is precisely these kinds of Washington institutions who most viciously attacked TAC in those days who now find themselves trusted partners and even "expert" sources! TAC! Beware! It's not too late to wake up and smell the deception! How to End Endless Wars (The Easy Way) If a Soros-Koch alliance was actually interested in ending endless US wars and re-orienting our currently hyper-interventionist foreign policy toward "restraint," it would simply announce that not another penny in campaign contributions would go to any candidate for House, Senate, or President who did not vow publicly in writing to vote against or veto any legislation that did not reduce military spending, that imposed sanctions overseas, that threatened governments overseas, that appropriated funds in secret or overtly to destabilize or overthrow governments overseas, or that sent foreign "aid" to any government overseas. It would cost pennies to make such an announcement and stick to it, and the result would be a massive shift in the American body politic toward what the current alliance advertises itself as promoting. But Koch/Soros don't really want to end endless US interventions overseas. They want to fund the same old think tanks who are responsible for the disaster that is US foreign policy, re-brand interventionism as non-interventionism, and hope none of us rubes in flyover country notices. To paraphrase what Pat Buchanan said about Democrats in his historic 1992 convention speech, the whitewashing of Washington's most egregiously interventionist institutions and experts as "restrained" non-interventionists is "the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history." Support the Ron Paul Institute Sincerely yours, Daniel McAdams Executive Director Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Bitcoin: 3GBe2oTXNxa7vUjRKAz6B2YNNo7ADyppq9 Copyright © 2020 The Ron Paul Institute, All rights reserved.

Support for Assange builds Paul, Ellsberg, Chomsky warn of peril to press freedom

Julian Assange, and his right to freely publish what he wishes, is drawing support from both the Left and the Right. It is only those invested in the Deep State (=the Establishment) that are cool on this issue. Politicians who say Assange should "pay" (for what, exactly?) don't seem to understand that once the precedent is set, the Espionage Act can easily be used to gag them.

Here is a link to a Right-libertarian video:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/28/ron_paul_interviews_julian_assange_the_cia_has_been_deeply_humiliated.html

Other such videos are easily found on the internet.

Following are links provided from a Left organization:

https://www.laprogressive.com/julian-assange-defense/

https://defend.wikileaks.org/event-materials/

VIMEO LINKS (PASSWORD: Courage2020)

COLLATERAL MURDER PART 1

https://vimeo.com/390658212

COLLATERAL MURDER PART 2

https://vimeo.com/390658411

COLLATERAL MURDER (COMPLETE 37:00)

https://vimeo.com/390658729

VIDEOCRATIC YOUTUBE LINKS (ALL UNLISTED OR PUBLIC — YOU JUST NEED THE LINKS TO VIEW)

DEMOCRACY NOW IRAQ WAR LOGS REPORT (public)

https://youtu.be/th2Xre4I510

BARRISTER JENNIFER ROBINSON THANKS ASSANGE SUPPORTERS (unlisted)

https://youtu.be/quklBbklwWo

ELLSBERG AND CHOMSKY ON THE CASE OF Julian Assange (OVERVIEW).  (unlisted)

https://youtu.be/ZZxxBoLzQxU

THE GUARDIAN ON SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RAPE CHARGES AGAINST Julian Assange. (Public)

https://studio.youtube.com/video/d2D080DZew8/edit

ELLSBERG AND CHOMSKY ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS  (unlisted)

https://youtu.be/d3ZnBdJ-omU

Julian Assange AND WHISTLEBLOWER SIBEL EDMONDS ON DEEP CORRUPTION TEID TO GENCOCIDE DENAIL  (unlisted)

https://youtu.be/Rbv61oNfLs8

ARCHITECTS OF DENIAL (TRAILER).  (public)

https://youtu.be/3iaL_8rJRrA

ELLSBERG ON WIKILEAKS AND WHISTLEBLOWERS.  (unlisted)

https://youtu.be/2wxw2uGC1o4

CHOMSKY and ELLSBERG ON RUSSIA AND ASSANGE.  (unlisted)

https://youtu.be/KB778Dx4q4Y

CHOMSKY AND ELLSBERG ON ASSANGE CONDITIONS.  (unlisted)

https://youtu.be/JbSp-ckJlbA

CHOMSKY ON ASSANGE SELECTS.  (unlisted)

https://youtu.be/Phb-3gFR0Io

Reds communizing Holy Bible

War on Christ goes global


Declassified expose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB_FTMjXeDc

Hard-to-find document on press curbs (see below italic matter)

---

Euro-blast heard round the world in support of Assange

The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly has strongly chastised Britain and the United States for joining the sad list of governments that repress freedom of press through harsh measures.

The accused countries have ignored the statement, as has much of the media in those countries. Britain has left the European Union and it is questionable whether the Assembly's criticism will have much effect, though it may certainly affect international relations for both countries. For example, neither country is in much of a position to criticize Russia and China for their dreadful record of stifling press whistleblowers.

The following document required a diligent search of two major search engines in order to locate it. That is, it wasn't readily available to the interested public.

As part of a bruising partisan political fight, the U.S. envoy to the Council of Europe was relieved of his post Friday by President Trump who had lost confidence in him after his testimony during the House intelligence panel's "impeachment" process.

Also transferred to other duties were another witness, security aide Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, and his twin brother, security aide Lt. Col. Oleg Vindman. The Pentagon said it had jobs to which to post the two Army officers.

The shakeup puts a crimp in any feedback to the United States on risks of pursuing a get-Assange program in line with the attack launched by Mike Pompeo, who was then CIA chief and is now secretary of state.

Trump backers in the Senate worked hard to avoid a slim majority vote to convict, which would have meant acquittal but seen as a de facto vote of censure that could have wrecked Trump's reelection bid.  The abusive proceedings used against Trump may be contrasted with the attack on freedom of press being waged in the Assange matter. Assange has suffered far more for doing far less.

For example, most of the corporate media have agreed to a Deep State gag order on the naming of two men who may have been helpful hostile witnesses in Trump's defense. The mostly pro-Trump Fox News would not print a question in which Rand Paul, R-Ky, on the Senate floor named security officials Eric Chiaramella and Sean Misko, without making any reference to the idea that Chiaramella was the "whistleblower" whose complaint was used to justify the impeachment inquiry.

Granted, the indictment of Assange initially on a bogus terrorism charge and later on equally bogus spy charges may have had support from Justice Department Deep Staters eager to pay back Assange for spoiling their game. And Trump has been put in the position of being accused of Russia collusion if he lifts a finger to correct this outrageous abuse of power, which in some sense is virtually the use of a bill of attainder meant to punish one person for having the audacity to defy The Beast, exactly the grudge the Deep State holds against Trump.

---

Resolution 2317 (2020) 1 Provisional version

Threats to media freedom and journalists’ security in Europe

Parliamentary Assembly

1. Without the right to freedom of expression, and free, independent and pluralistic media, there is no true democracy. The Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly are firmly committed to strengthening media freedom in all its aspects, including the right of access to information, the protection of sources, the protection against searches of professional workplaces and private domiciles and the seizure of materials, the safeguard of editorial independence and of the ability to investigate, criticise and contribute to public debate without fear of pressure or interference. The safety of journalists and other media actors is a fundamental component of this freedom.

2. Under the European Convention on Human Rights – in particular, but not only, its Article 10 – member States have a positive obligation to establish a sound legal framework for journalists and other media actors to work safely. However, threats, harassment, legal and administrative restrictions and undue political and economic pressure are widespread. Worse still, in some countries, journalists who investigate affairs involving corruption or abuse of power, or who merely voice criticism of political leaders and governments in power, are physically attacked, arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured or even murdered. In this respect, the Assembly also refers to its Resolution 2293 (2019) “Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination and the rule of law in Malta and beyond: ensuring that the whole truth emerges”.

3. According to the information published by the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists (the Platform), from 2015 to 25 November 2019, 26 journalists have been killed, including 22 cases where there has been impunity, and 109 journalists are currently in detention; 638 serious press freedom violations have been perpetrated in 39 countries. Threats on media freedom and the safety of journalists have become so numerous, repeated and serious that they are jeopardising not only citizens’ right to be properly informed but also the stability and smooth functioning of our democratic societies.

4. The Council of Europe bodies, including the Parliamentary Assembly, must not only keep on advocating the development in all European countries and beyond of a safe environment for journalists and other media actors, but they must make use of all their leverage to prompt member States to remedy quickly and effectively any threats to media freedom, urging and supporting the reforms required to this aim.

5. Therefore, the Assembly calls on member States to protect more effectively the safety of journalists and media freedom. In this connection, they must:

5.1. fully implement Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors;

5.2. carry out effective, independent and prompt investigations into any crimes against journalists, such as killings, attacks or ill-treatment, and bring to justice authors, instigators, perpetrators and accomplices who are responsible under the law, ensuring that there is no impunity for attacks against journalists; 1. Assembly debate on 28 January 2020 (4th Sitting) (see Doc. 15021, report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, rapporteur: Lord George Foulkes). Text adopted by the Assembly on 28 January 2020 (4th Sitting). See also Recommendation 2168 (2020). http://assembly.coe.int F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | assembly.coe.int

5.3. set up national mechanisms consistent with the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, ensuring that such mechanisms are designed and implemented under strong political and operational leadership, with proper inter-agency co-ordination and in genuine partnership with civil society, notably journalists’ associations and trade unions, and media freedom watchdog organisations;

5.4. fight on-line harassment of journalists, particularly female journalists and journalists belonging to minorities, and enhance the protection of investigative journalists and whistleblowers;

5.5. support the establishment of early-warning and rapid-response mechanisms, such as hotlines or emergency contact points, to ensure that journalists have immediate access to protection whenever they are threatened;

5.6. pay particular attention to the rising number of attacks on journalists and media outlets from groups of extremists and criminal organisations, and take appropriate preventive measures when journalists’ life or safety is exposed to a real and immediate risk;

5.7. enhance the co-operation and exchange of information, expertise and best practices with other States whenever crimes against journalists involve cross-border or online dimensions;

5.8. back up laws protecting journalists with effective law enforcement apparatus and redress mechanisms for victims and their families;

5.9. avoid arrest and extradition of journalists in exile to their countries of origin where they risk punishment and persecution.

6. The Assembly calls on member States to create an enabling and favourable media environment and review to this end their legislation, seeking to prevent any misuse of different laws or provisions which may impact on media freedom – such as those on defamation, anti-terrorism, national security, public order, hate speech, blasphemy or memory laws – which are too often applied to intimidate and silence journalists. In this connection, they must, in particular:

6.1. propose no penal sanctions for a media offence – especially prison sentences, closure of media outlets or blocking of websites and social media platforms – except in cases where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, for instance in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence or to terrorism; ensure that these sanctions are not applied in a discriminatory or arbitrary way against journalists;

6.2. recognise, and ensure respect of, the right of journalists to protect their sources, and develop an appropriate normative, judicial and institutional framework to protect whistleblowers and whistleblowing facilitators, in line with Assembly Resolution 2300 (2019) “Improving the protection of whistleblowers all over Europe”; in this respect, consider that the detention and criminal prosecution of Mr Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, and join the recommendation of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment who declared, on 1 November 2019, that Mr Assange's extradition to the United States must be barred and that he must be promptly released;

6.3. facilitate journalists’ work in specific difficult contexts, such as in conflict zones or in public rallies;

6.4. firmly condemn police violence against journalists and establish deterrent sanctions in this respect;

6.5. develop specific training programmes for law-enforcement bodies and officials who are responsible for fulfilling State obligations concerning the protection of journalists;

6.6. avoid any misuse of administrative measures, such as registration or accreditation, and of tax schemes to harass journalists or apply pressure to them;

6.7. develop constructive, nondiscriminatory mechanisms of dialogue with media and journalists standing or ad hoc committees, bringing together politicians, judges, public prosecutors, police officers, journalists and editors, to discuss problems concerning journalists’ security, and look for solutions in a collaborative framework, also paying specific attention to the need to ensure effective protection for investigative journalists, as well as to the higher vulnerability of women journalists and the particular vulnerability of freelancers. Resolution 2317 (2020) 2

7. The Assembly condemns the rise of aggressive behaviour and violent verbal attacks by political figures and representatives of the authorities against journalists and calls on all political leaders to combat this phenomenon.

8. The Assembly notes with concern that public service media have been under increasing pressure in most parts of Europe, suffering from funding cuts and new laws or regulations which limit their independence or reduce their remits. The Assembly reaffirms and commends the crucial role that public service media play in a democratic society and it calls again on member States to ensure their adequate and sustainable funding, editorial independence and institutional autonomy. 9. While the above-mentioned problems or at least some of them are observed in various proportions in most countries, the Assembly has to note that, concerning media freedom and safety of journalists, the situation in some member States is particularly worrying. In this context, the Assembly specifically calls on:

9.1. Azerbaijan to radically modify the actual hostile environment which seriously curtails media freedom and, in particular:

9.1.1. ban the abuse of penal legislation to silence independent journalists, who are today systematically threatened with unfounded criminal charges, trumped-up evidence and unjustified imprisonment;

9.1.2. review urgently all cases of imprisoned journalists and media professionals, and free all those who are detained without any serious and substantiated evidence of criminal activities;

9.1.3. refrain from the adoption of restrictive administrative measures, such as a travel ban on journalists, which limit their freedom to properly inform the public;

9.1.4. end legal harassment of independent news agencies, for example through false accusations of tax-evasion or under-declaring profits;

9.1.5. stop systematically blocking access to independent news websites;

9.1.6. stop any administrative and political pressure against the only independent news agency Turan and against the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS);

9.2. Hungary to immediately address the grave problem of media pluralism; the politically and economically biased licensing media conglomerate concentrating 78% of the Hungarian media closely associated with the ruling party is totally incompatible with freedom of expression and information;

9.3. Malta to:

9.3.1. urgently end the prevailing climate of impunity and implement Assembly Resolution 2293 (2019). In this connection, the Assembly welcomes the recent announcement of revised terms of reference and composition of a public independent inquiry into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, following the concerns set out in the Declaration of the PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights;

9.3.2. as recommended by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, repeal any laws allowing the posthumous pursuit of defamation cases, targeting journalists, against their heirs. It is unacceptable that over 30 posthumous civil defamation proceedings against Daphne Caruana Galizia’s family are still under way;

9.4. the Russian Federation – which holds the dubious record number of alerts on serious attacks against, and harassment and intimidation of, journalists – to immediately:

9.4.1. address the problem of violence against journalists, including murders, physical attacks and threats, arrests, imprisonment, on-line harassment; take remedial action to impede such crimes and put an end to the climate of impunity that encourages further attacks; those who carried out or ordered the crimes must be brought to justice;

9.4.2. prevent police violence against journalists, as has happened during July-August 2019 demonstrations in Moscow; apply deterrent sanctions against policemen who are responsible for such unacceptable misuse of power;

9.4.3. stop intimidation of journalists by way of arrests and imprisonment under forged accusations of drug dealing or other, in order to prevent journalistic investigations of corruption and misuse of power as in the case of the journalist Ivan Golunov; Resolution 2317 (2020) 3

9.4.4. cease abusing anti-terrorism laws to apply censorship to the media, as in the case of the journalist Svetlana Prokopyeva, who was charged with “publicly justifying terrorism” and could face up to seven years in prison, for expressing on-air her opinion about a teenage suicide;

9.4.5. review the terms of reference of the Russian federal media regulator, Roskomnadzor, to limit its excessive power in the monitoring and censorship of the media, including on-line media; the blocking of independent media outlets without any warning or explanation, as recently happened to the Fergana news website, is an action amounting to censorship that is incompatible with the freedom of the media;

9.4.6. modify the recent legislation on false news and disrespect for the state, the authorities and society, and bring it into line with the Council of Europe standards; general prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, including “false news” or “non-objective information”, are incompatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and must be abolished; they have a chilling effect of self-censorship on journalists and other media professionals and allow the government to silence any criticism against the ruling power, putting journalists and bloggers who oppose it in jail, and to determine the makeup of the media landscape by forcing media outlets to remove content identified by the authorities as “socially dangerous” or “disrespectful” or having their websites blocked;

9.4.7. stop discriminating against the main organisations defending the media by declaring them “foreign agents”; repeal the new bill adopted by the State Duma which extends the status of “foreign agents” to freelance journalists and bloggers receiving grants, salaries, or payment for specific pieces of work from any foreign source: marking with the “foreign agent” label the information published by independent journalists and bloggers will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and of the media;

9.5. Turkey – the country which has the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the Council of Europe region – to immediately: 9.5.1. end abusing the penal code and anti-terrorism laws to silence media outlets and journalists: the latter are placed in arbitrary pre-trial arrest and detention, and are held for months, sometimes for years, before their cases come to court; the European Court of Human Rights has consistently condemned such detentions as a real and effective constraint on freedom of expression that leads to self-censorship;

9.5.2. in line with Assembly Resolution 2121 (2016), repeal Article 299 (Insulting the President of the Republic), repeal or amend Article 301 (Degrading the Turkish Nation, the State of the Turkish Republic, the Organs and Institutions of the State) and ensure a strict interpretation of Article 216 (incitement to violence, armed resistance or uprising) and Article 314 (Membership of an Armed Organisation) from its penal code which, according to the Venice Commission, contains excessive sanctions and is too widely applied against freedom of expression and information; 9.5.3. ensure that the over 150 media outlets which were closed and the about 10 000 media employees which were dismissed after the failed coup in 2016 have access to effective domestic remedies and, if the case arises, obtain adequate compensation;

9.5.4. eliminate from the recently adopted legislation all provisions retained from the abolished emergency decrees that make it possible to apply radical measures against the media;

9.5.5. ensure that the newly introduced regulation empowering the Radio and Television Supreme Council to supervise internet media strictly abides by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights;

9.5.6. continue the reforms for revising the Internet Act in order to avoid unnecessary and unjustified blocking of access to internet resources on the grounds of “national security”;

9.5.7. in the framework of the announced Judicial Reform Strategy, focus on the protection of journalists’ safety and ensure, in that context, that meaningful steps be taken to expand freedom of expression and of the media and guarantee judicial independence, in line with Council of Europe standards. Resolution 2317 (2020) 4

10. The Assembly welcomes the constructive attitude that a number of member States have shown so far with regard to the Platform and the alerts published therein. As examples: France and Ukraine have set up response mechanisms to co-ordinate adequate follow-up to the alerts seeking to solve them. In the Netherlands, the public prosecution, the police authorities and media outlets concluded an agreement to adopt preventive measures and co-ordinate responses to instance of violence. Encouraging progress could be acknowledged in North Macedonia, where pressure and prosecutions against journalists have been significantly reduced.

11. With the hope that all member States will recognise the added value that the Platform represents and the importance of the contribution that its partners offer to the Council of Europe, the Assembly calls on member States to:

11.1. engage in an unreserved support and effective co-operation with the Platform, also contributing financially to its operation;

11.2. establish appropriate response mechanisms and provide substantive responses to the alerts posted in the Platform, looking for prompt remedial actions and adopting targeted measures to avoid repetitive cases;

11.3. consider how other member States are enhancing their collaboration with the partners of the Platform, seeking to follow positive examples and good practices;

11.4. support the development of other similar transnational technical platforms on which media professionals would be able to signal any threats to their security.

12. Finally, the Assembly calls on national parliaments to ensure that governments act in full respect of the Council of Europe standards concerning the right to freedom of expression, including media freedom and the safety of journalists. National parliaments must be the guardians of this right and ensure full engagement of the State apparatus at all levels: political, legislative, judicial, law enforcement and educational. In this connection, national parliaments should take more account of the Council of Europe work, and particularly bring the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers, and the Assembly’s reports and resolutions, to the attention of their relevant committees, and build on these texts when drafting legislation relevant for media freedom and the safety of journalists. Resolution 2317 (2020) 5

Euro-blast heard round the world in support of Assange

New version of this page is at

https://invisiblepaul.blogspot.com/2020/02/hard-to-find-document-on-press-curbs.html

---

The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly has strongly chastised Britain and the United States for joining the sad list of governments that repress freedom of press through harsh measures.

The accused countries have ignored the statement, as has much of the media in those countries. Britain has left the European Union and it is questionable whether the Assembly's criticism will have much effect, though it may certainly affect international relations for both countries. For example, neither country is in much of a position to criticize Russia and China for their dreadful record of stifling press whistleblowers.

The following document required a diligent search of two major search engines in order to locate it. That is, it wasn't readily available to the interested public.

---

Resolution 2317 (2020) 1 Provisional version

Threats to media freedom and journalists’ security in Europe

Parliamentary Assembly

1. Without the right to freedom of expression, and free, independent and pluralistic media, there is no true democracy. The Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly are firmly committed to strengthening media freedom in all its aspects, including the right of access to information, the protection of sources, the protection against searches of professional workplaces and private domiciles and the seizure of materials, the safeguard of editorial independence and of the ability to investigate, criticise and contribute to public debate without fear of pressure or interference. The safety of journalists and other media actors is a fundamental component of this freedom.

2. Under the European Convention on Human Rights – in particular, but not only, its Article 10 – member States have a positive obligation to establish a sound legal framework for journalists and other media actors to work safely. However, threats, harassment, legal and administrative restrictions and undue political and economic pressure are widespread. Worse still, in some countries, journalists who investigate affairs involving corruption or abuse of power, or who merely voice criticism of political leaders and governments in power, are physically attacked, arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured or even murdered. In this respect, the Assembly also refers to its Resolution 2293 (2019) “Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination and the rule of law in Malta and beyond: ensuring that the whole truth emerges”.

3. According to the information published by the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists (the Platform), from 2015 to 25 November 2019, 26 journalists have been killed, including 22 cases where there has been impunity, and 109 journalists are currently in detention; 638 serious press freedom violations have been perpetrated in 39 countries. Threats on media freedom and the safety of journalists have become so numerous, repeated and serious that they are jeopardising not only citizens’ right to be properly informed but also the stability and smooth functioning of our democratic societies.

4. The Council of Europe bodies, including the Parliamentary Assembly, must not only keep on advocating the development in all European countries and beyond of a safe environment for journalists and other media actors, but they must make use of all their leverage to prompt member States to remedy quickly and effectively any threats to media freedom, urging and supporting the reforms required to this aim.

5. Therefore, the Assembly calls on member States to protect more effectively the safety of journalists and media freedom. In this connection, they must:

5.1. fully implement Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors;

5.2. carry out effective, independent and prompt investigations into any crimes against journalists, such as killings, attacks or ill-treatment, and bring to justice authors, instigators, perpetrators and accomplices who are responsible under the law, ensuring that there is no impunity for attacks against journalists; 1. Assembly debate on 28 January 2020 (4th Sitting) (see Doc. 15021, report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, rapporteur: Lord George Foulkes). Text adopted by the Assembly on 28 January 2020 (4th Sitting). See also Recommendation 2168 (2020). http://assembly.coe.int F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | assembly.coe.int

5.3. set up national mechanisms consistent with the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, ensuring that such mechanisms are designed and implemented under strong political and operational leadership, with proper inter-agency co-ordination and in genuine partnership with civil society, notably journalists’ associations and trade unions, and media freedom watchdog organisations;

5.4. fight on-line harassment of journalists, particularly female journalists and journalists belonging to minorities, and enhance the protection of investigative journalists and whistleblowers;

5.5. support the establishment of early-warning and rapid-response mechanisms, such as hotlines or emergency contact points, to ensure that journalists have immediate access to protection whenever they are threatened;

5.6. pay particular attention to the rising number of attacks on journalists and media outlets from groups of extremists and criminal organisations, and take appropriate preventive measures when journalists’ life or safety is exposed to a real and immediate risk;

5.7. enhance the co-operation and exchange of information, expertise and best practices with other States whenever crimes against journalists involve cross-border or online dimensions;

5.8. back up laws protecting journalists with effective law enforcement apparatus and redress mechanisms for victims and their families;

5.9. avoid arrest and extradition of journalists in exile to their countries of origin where they risk punishment and persecution.

6. The Assembly calls on member States to create an enabling and favourable media environment and review to this end their legislation, seeking to prevent any misuse of different laws or provisions which may impact on media freedom – such as those on defamation, anti-terrorism, national security, public order, hate speech, blasphemy or memory laws – which are too often applied to intimidate and silence journalists. In this connection, they must, in particular:

6.1. propose no penal sanctions for a media offence – especially prison sentences, closure of media outlets or blocking of websites and social media platforms – except in cases where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, for instance in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence or to terrorism; ensure that these sanctions are not applied in a discriminatory or arbitrary way against journalists;

6.2. recognise, and ensure respect of, the right of journalists to protect their sources, and develop an appropriate normative, judicial and institutional framework to protect whistleblowers and whistleblowing facilitators, in line with Assembly Resolution 2300 (2019) “Improving the protection of whistleblowers all over Europe”; in this respect, consider that the detention and criminal prosecution of Mr Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, and join the recommendation of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment who declared, on 1 November 2019, that Mr Assange's extradition to the United States must be barred and that he must be promptly released;

6.3. facilitate journalists’ work in specific difficult contexts, such as in conflict zones or in public rallies;

6.4. firmly condemn police violence against journalists and establish deterrent sanctions in this respect;

6.5. develop specific training programmes for law-enforcement bodies and officials who are responsible for fulfilling State obligations concerning the protection of journalists;

6.6. avoid any misuse of administrative measures, such as registration or accreditation, and of tax schemes to harass journalists or apply pressure to them;

6.7. develop constructive, nondiscriminatory mechanisms of dialogue with media and journalists standing or ad hoc committees, bringing together politicians, judges, public prosecutors, police officers, journalists and editors, to discuss problems concerning journalists’ security, and look for solutions in a collaborative framework, also paying specific attention to the need to ensure effective protection for investigative journalists, as well as to the higher vulnerability of women journalists and the particular vulnerability of freelancers. Resolution 2317 (2020) 2

7. The Assembly condemns the rise of aggressive behaviour and violent verbal attacks by political figures and representatives of the authorities against journalists and calls on all political leaders to combat this phenomenon.

8. The Assembly notes with concern that public service media have been under increasing pressure in most parts of Europe, suffering from funding cuts and new laws or regulations which limit their independence or reduce their remits. The Assembly reaffirms and commends the crucial role that public service media play in a democratic society and it calls again on member States to ensure their adequate and sustainable funding, editorial independence and institutional autonomy. 9. While the above-mentioned problems or at least some of them are observed in various proportions in most countries, the Assembly has to note that, concerning media freedom and safety of journalists, the situation in some member States is particularly worrying. In this context, the Assembly specifically calls on:

9.1. Azerbaijan to radically modify the actual hostile environment which seriously curtails media freedom and, in particular:

9.1.1. ban the abuse of penal legislation to silence independent journalists, who are today systematically threatened with unfounded criminal charges, trumped-up evidence and unjustified imprisonment;

9.1.2. review urgently all cases of imprisoned journalists and media professionals, and free all those who are detained without any serious and substantiated evidence of criminal activities;

9.1.3. refrain from the adoption of restrictive administrative measures, such as a travel ban on journalists, which limit their freedom to properly inform the public;

9.1.4. end legal harassment of independent news agencies, for example through false accusations of tax-evasion or under-declaring profits;

9.1.5. stop systematically blocking access to independent news websites;

9.1.6. stop any administrative and political pressure against the only independent news agency Turan and against the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS);

9.2. Hungary to immediately address the grave problem of media pluralism; the politically and economically biased licensing media conglomerate concentrating 78% of the Hungarian media closely associated with the ruling party is totally incompatible with freedom of expression and information;

9.3. Malta to:

9.3.1. urgently end the prevailing climate of impunity and implement Assembly Resolution 2293 (2019). In this connection, the Assembly welcomes the recent announcement of revised terms of reference and composition of a public independent inquiry into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, following the concerns set out in the Declaration of the PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights;

9.3.2. as recommended by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, repeal any laws allowing the posthumous pursuit of defamation cases, targeting journalists, against their heirs. It is unacceptable that over 30 posthumous civil defamation proceedings against Daphne Caruana Galizia’s family are still under way;

9.4. the Russian Federation – which holds the dubious record number of alerts on serious attacks against, and harassment and intimidation of, journalists – to immediately:

9.4.1. address the problem of violence against journalists, including murders, physical attacks and threats, arrests, imprisonment, on-line harassment; take remedial action to impede such crimes and put an end to the climate of impunity that encourages further attacks; those who carried out or ordered the crimes must be brought to justice;

9.4.2. prevent police violence against journalists, as has happened during July-August 2019 demonstrations in Moscow; apply deterrent sanctions against policemen who are responsible for such unacceptable misuse of power;

9.4.3. stop intimidation of journalists by way of arrests and imprisonment under forged accusations of drug dealing or other, in order to prevent journalistic investigations of corruption and misuse of power as in the case of the journalist Ivan Golunov; Resolution 2317 (2020) 3

9.4.4. cease abusing anti-terrorism laws to apply censorship to the media, as in the case of the journalist Svetlana Prokopyeva, who was charged with “publicly justifying terrorism” and could face up to seven years in prison, for expressing on-air her opinion about a teenage suicide;

9.4.5. review the terms of reference of the Russian federal media regulator, Roskomnadzor, to limit its excessive power in the monitoring and censorship of the media, including on-line media; the blocking of independent media outlets without any warning or explanation, as recently happened to the Fergana news website, is an action amounting to censorship that is incompatible with the freedom of the media;

9.4.6. modify the recent legislation on false news and disrespect for the state, the authorities and society, and bring it into line with the Council of Europe standards; general prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, including “false news” or “non-objective information”, are incompatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and must be abolished; they have a chilling effect of self-censorship on journalists and other media professionals and allow the government to silence any criticism against the ruling power, putting journalists and bloggers who oppose it in jail, and to determine the makeup of the media landscape by forcing media outlets to remove content identified by the authorities as “socially dangerous” or “disrespectful” or having their websites blocked;

9.4.7. stop discriminating against the main organisations defending the media by declaring them “foreign agents”; repeal the new bill adopted by the State Duma which extends the status of “foreign agents” to freelance journalists and bloggers receiving grants, salaries, or payment for specific pieces of work from any foreign source: marking with the “foreign agent” label the information published by independent journalists and bloggers will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and of the media;

9.5. Turkey – the country which has the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the Council of Europe region – to immediately: 9.5.1. end abusing the penal code and anti-terrorism laws to silence media outlets and journalists: the latter are placed in arbitrary pre-trial arrest and detention, and are held for months, sometimes for years, before their cases come to court; the European Court of Human Rights has consistently condemned such detentions as a real and effective constraint on freedom of expression that leads to self-censorship;

9.5.2. in line with Assembly Resolution 2121 (2016), repeal Article 299 (Insulting the President of the Republic), repeal or amend Article 301 (Degrading the Turkish Nation, the State of the Turkish Republic, the Organs and Institutions of the State) and ensure a strict interpretation of Article 216 (incitement to violence, armed resistance or uprising) and Article 314 (Membership of an Armed Organisation) from its penal code which, according to the Venice Commission, contains excessive sanctions and is too widely applied against freedom of expression and information; 9.5.3. ensure that the over 150 media outlets which were closed and the about 10 000 media employees which were dismissed after the failed coup in 2016 have access to effective domestic remedies and, if the case arises, obtain adequate compensation;

9.5.4. eliminate from the recently adopted legislation all provisions retained from the abolished emergency decrees that make it possible to apply radical measures against the media;

9.5.5. ensure that the newly introduced regulation empowering the Radio and Television Supreme Council to supervise internet media strictly abides by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights;

9.5.6. continue the reforms for revising the Internet Act in order to avoid unnecessary and unjustified blocking of access to internet resources on the grounds of “national security”;

9.5.7. in the framework of the announced Judicial Reform Strategy, focus on the protection of journalists’ safety and ensure, in that context, that meaningful steps be taken to expand freedom of expression and of the media and guarantee judicial independence, in line with Council of Europe standards. Resolution 2317 (2020) 4

10. The Assembly welcomes the constructive attitude that a number of member States have shown so far with regard to the Platform and the alerts published therein. As examples: France and Ukraine have set up response mechanisms to co-ordinate adequate follow-up to the alerts seeking to solve them. In the Netherlands, the public prosecution, the police authorities and media outlets concluded an agreement to adopt preventive measures and co-ordinate responses to instance of violence. Encouraging progress could be acknowledged in North Macedonia, where pressure and prosecutions against journalists have been significantly reduced.

11. With the hope that all member States will recognise the added value that the Platform represents and the importance of the contribution that its partners offer to the Council of Europe, the Assembly calls on member States to:

11.1. engage in an unreserved support and effective co-operation with the Platform, also contributing financially to its operation;

11.2. establish appropriate response mechanisms and provide substantive responses to the alerts posted in the Platform, looking for prompt remedial actions and adopting targeted measures to avoid repetitive cases;

11.3. consider how other member States are enhancing their collaboration with the partners of the Platform, seeking to follow positive examples and good practices;

11.4. support the development of other similar transnational technical platforms on which media professionals would be able to signal any threats to their security.

12. Finally, the Assembly calls on national parliaments to ensure that governments act in full respect of the Council of Europe standards concerning the right to freedom of expression, including media freedom and the safety of journalists. National parliaments must be the guardians of this right and ensure full engagement of the State apparatus at all levels: political, legislative, judicial, law enforcement and educational. In this connection, national parliaments should take more account of the Council of Europe work, and particularly bring the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers, and the Assembly’s reports and resolutions, to the attention of their relevant committees, and build on these texts when drafting legislation relevant for media freedom and the safety of journalists. Resolution 2317 (2020) 5