Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

North Korea is Threatening a Strike on Guam After Trump’s Warning

North Korean officials say they are considering a missile strike against Guam, a U.S. territory, after President Trump issued a warning against the North that any threat to the U.S. would be met with “fire and fury.” After Trump’s harsh words, experts warned against taking part in rhetorical arguments with Kim Jong Un. North Korea has also claimed that the U.S. is planning a “preventive war” and if that becomes reality, Pyongyang will begin an “all-out war wiping out all the strongholds of enemies, including the U.S. mainland.”

About 163,000 people live on Guam, but it’s also the base of a submarine squadron, an airbase, and a Coast Guard group. U.S. officials have said they would prefer to use diplomatic means to solve any conflicts, but would not hesitate to use force if needed. However, Guam’s governor, Eddie Calvo, dismissed the threat and said the island is prepared for “any eventuality.”

North Korea says seriously considering plan to strike Guam: KCNA https://t.co/XLxpImmfG4 pic.twitter.com/qOiy7PJ0i0

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) August 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

You may have noticed “WikiLeaks” coming up in the news a few times lately. Recently, its founder, Julian Assange, saw the Swedish investigation into rape allegations levied against him suspended–although he does still face arrest if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in London. And Chelsea Manning, who leaked a massive number of documents to WikiLeaks, was just released from prison after her sentence was commuted by former President Barack Obama.

Wikileaks, which was launched in 2006 with the purpose of providing government and other relevant documents to citizens, has been all over the news since its inception. But what exactly is it, who is its founder, and why do you need to about it? Read on to learn more.

The Origins of WikiLeaks

Wikileaks officially launched in 2006 and the first document was posted in December of that year, but the domain name “WikiLeaks” was registered that October.

WikiLeaks calls itself a “not-for-profit media organization” that seeks to increase transparency worldwide. Despite the similarity in names, there’s no connection between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia. Instead, WikiLeaks is associated with an organization called “Sunshine Press,” which handles some of the private aspects of WikiLeaks’ business.

WikiLeaks states its mission as:

Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure, and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth.

Australian Julian Assange is usually attributed as its main founder–although there are many other people, some anonymous, who worked on the project. Also associated with the project was investigative journalist Gavin MacFadyen, Assange’s mentor. He was the director of WikiLeaks. Before his death in 2016, MacFadyen founded the Julian Assange Legal Defense Committee. Sarah Harrison, a British journalist and researcher, has also been publicly identified as one of the organization’s associates. She’s best known for aiding Edward Snowden’s trip out of the U.S. after he leaked a trove of classified documents. Many of the other people associated with WikiLeaks are anonymous, but the organization claims that they include “accredited journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians, and others.”

How Does WikiLeaks Operate?

The organization is somewhat secretive in how it operates. But it is currently funded by donors and has no one permanent location or office. It has servers in multiple countries and claims it does so to protect the organization in case one country decides to crack down on its operations. In 2016, Assange told Der Spiegel that the organization had posted over 10 million documents in 10 years. According to WikiLeaks, it is sent documents anonymously through email or other anonymous electronic means, and then those documents are vetted and uploaded–although it is important to note that there has been significant criticism about the veracity of some of those documents. WikiLeaks has occasionally worked with media organizations, including Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and The New York Times, although its relationships with some of those organizations have fluctuated over the years.

WikiLeaks and Well Known Whistleblowers

Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning is one of the most widely-known names associated with WikiLeaks. Manning, a U.S. soldier then known as Pte First Class Bradley Manning, sent more than 720,000 secret documents to WikiLeaks in 2010. At the time, she was working as an intelligence analyst. One of the most notable things included in this leak was video footage of a U.S. helicopter firing on and killing Iraqi citizens and journalists in 2007. She also leaked State Department cables, information related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and data about the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Manning was convicted of 20 charges associated with this leak, and sentenced to 35 years in prison. President Barack Obama commuted most of Manning’s sentence before he left office. When she was released in May 2017, she had spent seven years in prison. Manning’s sentence was controversial; many claimed it was too harsh, including advocates for whistleblower protections, transparency, and some human rights groups like Amnesty International. Others claimed that the punishment fit the crime. President Donald Trump, for instance, has called Manning an “ungrateful TRAITOR.”

Manning’s punishment was complicated by the fact that she is a transwoman who was confined in a men’s prison. Manning’s difficulty transitioning while incarcerated was made public, and her struggles to obtain that care worried human rights advocates.

The video below discusses Chelsea Manning’s case in more detail:

Edward Snowden 

Perhaps the most recognizable whistleblower in the world is Edward Snowden. Snowden worked for the CIA and then for well-known government consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton. In 2013, he leaked hundreds of thousands of documents that, among other things, revealed the NSA’s surveillance of American citizens as well as information about British surveillance programs.

Snowden did not release this information to WikiLeaks, instead, he gave the documents to media sources. According to Snowden, the only two who were given the full array of documents were Glenn Greenwald, who worked for The Guardian and Laura Poitras, who later made “Citizenfour,” the award-winning documentary about Snowden. However, in the aftermath of the leaks, Snowden was aided by WikiLeaks-associated individuals. After Snowden fled the United States, Sarah Harrison helped him get set up in Russia and avoid American detection. WikiLeaks also submitted asylum requests to multiple countries on Snowden’s behalf.

Since 2013, Snowden has been loosely associated with WikiLeaks at other times. At various points, Snowden has weighed in on the accuracy of documents leaked by the organization. For example, in March 2017, Snowden publicly said that he believed the documents related to CIA hacking techniques released by WikiLeaks were true.

But, Snowden has also been critical of WikiLeaks. In July 2016, Snowden criticized WikiLeaks for not curating the information it released, instead just indiscriminately posting documents related to the U.S. election. In response, WikiLeaks accused Snowden of trying to curry favor with the then-front-runner in the election, Hillary Clinton.

WikiLeaks Controversy and Criticisms

There are lots of criticisms consistently levied against WikiLeaks and the people associated with it. Here are some of the most prevalent:

Julian Assange’s Legal Troubles

Julian Assange has spent the last five years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Assange was accused of sexual assault by two women in Stockholm, Sweden in 2010. Assange claims that the sexual encounters with the two women were both consensual and that they were only accusing him of assault because of political reasons. In 2012, Assange sought asylum from Ecuador and was granted the ability to stay in the country’s embassy in London. While Sweden recently announced that it was no longer seeking his arrest, he still isn’t likely to leave the embassy any time soon. U.K. officials have said they can arrest him on other charges, like jumping bail. And if he’s extradited to the United States, he could be subject to a variety of charges related to WikiLeaks. If he is ever extradited to the U.S. for charges related to release of documents stolen by Chelsea Manning, he could be in serious trouble.

Redactions Wanted

WikiLeaks’ “leak all for transparency’s sake” approach to releasing information has garnered it some criticism. In July 2016, WikiLeaks claimed to publish a number of documents related to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The so-called “Erdogan emails” didn’t really appear to contain any political bombshells, but did include links to databases containing the information of Turkish citizens. One database had the personal information of almost every woman in the country. The info included things like addresses, cell phone numbers, and political information. Essentially, WikiLeaks doxxed almost half the country. While the files were eventually taken down, WikiLeaks was criticized for going beyond transparency to potentially harming private individuals.

2016 Election Hacks

WikiLeaks has recently been criticized for its role leaking documents pertaining to the 2016 election. WikiLeaks leaked DNC emails that reflected negatively on Hillary Clinton’s presidency campaign. Charlie Savage of the New York Times argued that Assange specifically timed the release of the DNC emails to come out at the most politically damaging time for Clinton, a claim bolstered by Assange’s own admission that he saw Clinton as a “personal foe.” In addition to releasing emails from the DNC, Wikileaks also published a trove of emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s personal email account. Those were also released in batches in a way that kept much of the information in the news as the campaign progressed. WikiLeaks has even been accused of colluding with Russia’s attempts to propel now-President Donald Trump to the presidency. The U.S. intelligence community issued a report that attributed the DNC hack to Russian intelligence services, which caused many to question the extent to which WikiLeaks is associated with the Russian government. WikiLeaks has refused to divulge the source of the documents and has so far denied any connection with Russia.

Conclusion

As a political topic, WikiLeaks is no doubt controversial. In the era of fake news, and distrust in the media and government institutions, WikiLeaks has often garnered credit for being willing to provide ordinary citizens with primary sources. On the other hand, WikiLeaks’ mystique, founder’s legal issues, and accusations of bias and irresponsible dissemination of information has led to plenty of criticism. In fact, in the last year, plenty of think pieces have been written, accusing WikiLeaks of “losing its friends” and “losing the moral high ground.” But given the space it has carved out as a repository for leaked information, and the relative fame of some of the people associated with it, including Julian Assange, it’s unlikely to disappear from our radars anytime soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is WikiLeaks and Who is Julian Assange? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Around the World with Donald Trump

Today, President Donald Trump sets off for a foreign trip. Given recent hits to the credibility of his leadership–most notably his firing of James Comey and allegations that he leaked sensitive information to Russian diplomats–this trip is considered “do or die” by many.

Getting ready for my big foreign trip. Will be strongly protecting American interests – that’s what I like to do!

— President Trump (@POTUS) May 19, 2017

Trump will visit Saudi Arabia and Israel as well as attend global summits in Italy and Belgium. The whole world is watching to see if he manages to slip up or offend any other world leaders on his tour. But according to some reports, Trump doesn’t actually want to go on the trip. Information has also been leaked indicating that preparing Trump for high-pressure situations is harder than it should be. According to the New York Times: “In an attempt to capture his interest, aides threaded Mr. Trump’s own name through the paragraphs of one of the two-page memos they wrote for him.” All eyes will be on Trump during his trip–we’ll have to see how this goes.

via GIPHY

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

U.S. Intelligence officials testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday morning, addressing Russia’s election cyberattack, and the overall importance of U.S. intelligence forces. President Barack Obama called for the hearing after responding with sanctions and expulsions of Russian diplomats last week. An unclassified report on Russian hacking of Democratic National Committee emails is expected early next week.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, opened the hearing with a statement: “The goal of this review, as I understand it, is not to question the outcome of the presidential election. Nor should it be. As both President Obama and President-elect Trump have said, our nation must move forward. But we must do so with full knowledge of the facts.”

Top-ranking members of the intelligence community, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, answered questions from a bi-partisan cohort of lawmakers. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) asked Clapper if it’s healthy when elected officials question U.S. intelligence, likely alluding to President-elect Donald Trump. Skepticism is healthy, he said, but “there’s a difference between skepticism and disparagement.”

Clapper added: “Congress must set partisanship aside, follow the facts, and work together to devise comprehensive solutions to deter, defend against, and, when necessary, respond to foreign cyberattacks.” Since the CIA and the FBI concluded that Russia was the culprit behind the DNC hack, and in fact likely interfered with the aim of electing Trump, the president-elect has disputed those findings, and has seemed to place more trust in Russian President Vladimir Putin than U.S. intelligence.

Trump said the idea of Russia interfering in the presidential election on his behalf is “ridiculous.” Using his Twitter account as a megaphone, Trump has undermined the intelligence community’s findings, and has urged Congress to “move on.” Democrats and Republicans alike have expressed alarm at the Russian hack, and at Trump’s seeming ambivalence in responding to the cyberattack.

In a pair of tweets on Wednesday, Trump quoted Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, who said Russia did not provide him with any hacked emails. “Julian Assange said ‘a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta’ – why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info!” Trump tweeted, referring to Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, whose emails were leaked in the weeks and months  leading up to Election Day. In Thursday’s hearing, Clapper was asked if Assange is a reliable source of information. “Not in my view,” he replied.

Last week, Obama responded to the Russian hack in a flurry of diplomatic moves. He ejected 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S., ordered the closure of two Russian-owned compounds in Maryland and Virginia, and slapped sanctions on a Russian intelligence agency. Trump has viewed the intelligence agencies’ conclusions, and the uproar from both parties, as a way to undermine his election victory. 

Lindsey Graham, the outspoken Republican senator from South Carolina, addressed Trump directly as the hearing came to a close. “I want to let the president-elect to know that it’s okay to challenge the intel,” he said, “but what I don’t want you to do is undermine those who are serving our nation in this arena until you’re absolutely sure they need to be undermined.” Graham added: “The foundation of democracy is political parties, and when one political party is compromised all of us are compromised.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Intelligence Officials Testify at Senate Hearing on Russian Hacking appeared first on Law Street.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange revealed in early October that he will publish a huge tranche of one million leaked documents before the U.S. presidential election–and over the last few weeks these revelations have caused a stir in American politics.

Julian Assange’s whistleblower platform WikiLeaks has published about 20,000 pages of emails illegally stolen from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair. Podesta, a longtime Clinton hand and Democratic party operative, was President Obama’s top political adviser before becoming chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign in February 2015.

The hacked emails provide an unprecedented glimpse into the inner workings of the Clinton campaign and its allies.

The U.S. government has said there is mounting evidence to suggest that Russia was responsible for supplying WikiLeaks with the hacked emails.

Clinton condemned the email hack during the third and final presidential debate. Moderator Chris Wallace, of Fox News, pressed the Democratic nominee to clarify her opinion on “open borders.” While Clinton rejected that she ever supported “open borders,” Wallace pointed to a $25,000 speech to a Brazilian bank, recently exposed by WikiLeaks, in which Clinton said that her “dream is a hemispheric common market, and open trade and open borders.”

“You are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks. What’s really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russians have engaged in espionage against Americans,” Clinton said. “They have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the internet.”

Clinton accused the highest levels of the Russian government and Putin himself for the cyberattacks on the U.S. The Democratic nominee called on Donald Trump to reject Russian espionage against Americans.

The Republican nominee criticized Clinton for pivoting the conversation about immigration to Putin. Trump offered his insights on the Russian leader, saying:

I don’t know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russian and the US get along well and went after ISIS that would be good.

When asked whether he condemned Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. elections, he said: “Of course I condemn, be it Russia or anybody else.”

The emails have raised fears for both political parties. Florida Senator Marco Rubio warned GOP officials earlier this week to stay quiet about the hacks.

“As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it,” Rubio said. “Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow it could be us.”

The 2016 presidential election continues to remain an unpredictable cycle marked by the leaks of emails, voice recordings, tax returns and classified information.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Political Fears Surrounding WikiLeaks: What You Should Know appeared first on Law Street.

Tweets sent out by WikiLeaks on Sunday afternoon had Julian Assange fans really concerned. The messages seemed like a “dead man’s switch”–which are encrypted messages containing highly classified material that become unveiled in case someone dies. This is what the messages looked like:

pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

pre-commitment 2: Ecuador
eae5c9b064ed649ba468f0800abf8b56ae5cfe355b93b1ce90a1b92a48a9ab72

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

These messages had Twitter users speculating that Assange was, in fact, dead.

There were also theories about what the messages actually meant. One possibility is that John Kerry is next to be targeted by a big release of classified information, considering recent WikiLeaks publications have focused on the Democratic Party specifically. According to former Trump adviser Roger Stone, Kerry has previously threatened the Ecuadorian government.

John Kerry has threatened the Ecuadorian President with “grave consequences for Equador” if Assange is not silenced @StoneColdTruth

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) October 17, 2016

Another interesting and bizarre aspect to the story is that actress Pamela Anderson unexpectedly and uninvited dropped by the embassy on Saturday to share a vegan lunch with Assange. Some fans even speculated that she was the one who had killed him, maybe hired by the American government, by bringing him a poisoned sandwich…but that obviously seems incredibly far-fetched.

@alburyj GET ASSANGE OUT OF THERE AND INTO HIDING. How do we know that Pamela Anderson isn’t working 4 someone to set up him up?

— Rosa Marzullo (@niftyrosa1) October 17, 2016

Pamela said she is an Assange supporter and that she is worried about his health. She wanted to bring him “a nice vegan lunch and some vegan snacks.” But maybe he would have preferred some hearty meat. “He said I tortured him with bringing him vegan food,” she said jokingly.

Finding out that Pamela Anderson & Julian Assange are friends is like watching an unlikely animal friendship video https://t.co/JnTTgrYCGg

— Gabriella Paiella (@GMPaiella) October 17, 2016

By Monday, everything pointed to Assange still being alive and well. Gizmodo speculated that “pre-commitment” in this case stands for a cryptographic plan to prevent classified and yet unreleased material from being tampered with.

The WikiLeaks Twitter account was active on Monday, also a good sign. In the early morning, it posted a tweet saying “a state party” had intentionally cut off Julian Assange’s internet connection. The message went on to say that the organization had “activated the appropriate contingency plans.”

Julian Assange’s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

On Saturday, WikiLeaks released the alleged full transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to financial firm Goldman Sachs. Many people thought the Monday cutoff of Assange’s internet was revenge for messing with Clinton.

We and many others believe Julian Assange’s internet was cut for criticizing Hillary Clinton. #FreeJulian

— Anonymous (@LatestAnonNews) October 17, 2016

Assange has been in hiding at Ecuador’s embassy in London for the last four years, trying to avoid extradition to Sweden over a rape case, which could lead to deportation to the U.S., where he fears he would be charged with espionage. The alleged internet cutoff comes after recent news that Sweden is not dropping the charges against him, and a press conference he held via video link on October 4. In that speech he promised 10 weeks of new releases of classified material, in celebration of Wikileak’s 10-year anniversary.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on With Julian Assange and WikiLeaks? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange’s internet link cut off by “state actor”

Recent reports tell us that Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange’s access to the internet has been severed. Assange has been in exile for almost four years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. The Associated Press concludes that an “unidentified state actor” has cut off his internet access and not much information about the event can be obtained at the moment. Many hack-savvy Redditors have pointed to some legitimate clues as to what could be going on. Others seem to be coming to their own conclusions.

The fact that #julianasange has been cut off the Internet for #wikileaks is proof that we need to vote for TRUMP!!!!! #noHillary #trumptrain

— cbreezy (@carriebeez1) October 17, 2016

So John Kerry working so hard to stop #julianasange makes u wonder what’s coming that they are so scared of to come out ?

— KamieK #TOLG (@01Kamie) October 17, 2016

Regardless of what people might think of Assange, what he’s been doing is pretty risky, and that makes him an important political character.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 17, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Yahoo: “U.S. Intelligence Made Us Do It!”

Reuters reported Tuesday that Yahoo has been doing broad sweeps of its users’ incoming emails under the (no longer) classified directive of the NSA or the FBI. The details of what the company was supposed to be looking for are still unclear. When asked about the matter, Yahoo said: “Yahoo is a law abiding company, and complies with the laws of the United States.”

Which is legalese for: Yahoo denies any semblance of wrongdoing. This news comes weeks after Yahoo announced a 500 million account hack.

*Suspicious squint*

Also Yahoo’s pending deal to be purchased by telecom giant Verizon for $4.8 billion is looking pretty rickety.

via GIPHY

Sources say that it is likely other tech companies have been ordered by the government to conduct this type of surveillance too. Reuters says Google and Microsoft have not responded to requests for comment on the issue.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 5, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

A Swedish court decided on Friday that the arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange still stands. He was accused of rape during a visit to Sweden back in 2010 and remains in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Assange denies the rape allegation and has refused to leave the embassy out of fear that he will be extradited to the United States where he could face espionage charges for documents leaked by his website.

Originally from Australia, Julian Assange visited Sweden in the summer of 2010 to give a lecture. He spent time with two Swedish women and over the course of a couple days he spent the night with each of them. Opinions diverge over what happened next. According to the women, what started out as consensual sex ended up being non-consensual. But Assange denies any wrongdoing and claimed he was shocked to hear the accusations.

Some people believe the women are part of a bigger political scheme to have Assange arrested. International media has criticized the strict Swedish rape laws, calling the country a “feminist dystopia” for how easy it is to be convicted while mocking the women for being upset that Assange dated more than one person at the same time. But the women’s testimonies, which were obtained by the Guardian, indicate that the case is more complicated than that. Assange allegedly attempted to have sex with both women without a condom, and although he eventually did use one, one of the women alleges that he intentionally ripped it before they had sex. The other woman claims she woke up and realized he was having unprotected sex with her, against her will. According to the Associated Press, allegations of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion were dropped due to the statute of limitations in Sweden, but the rape charge will remain until 2020.

In response to the ruling, Assange’s Swedish defense lawyer Per Samuelson told the Associated Press, “We are naturally disappointed that Swedish courts yet again choose to ignore Julian Assange’s difficult life situation. They ignore the risk that he will be extradited to the United States.”

Swedish prosecutors said they have not been in contact with the United States about Assange’s case, and if a third country asks to have Assange extradited it would need permission from Britain. Prosecutors are trying to move forward on the case by interrogating Assange at the embassy with the help of an Ecuadorean official who will question him on October 17.

Yesterday, the Wikileaks Twitter account said that Assange would turn himself into the United States if authorities release Chelsea Manning.

If Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will agree to US prison in exchange — despite its clear unlawfulness https://t.co/MZU30S3Eia

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) September 15, 2016

Manning is currently serving a 35-year prison sentence for leaking classified materials. She ended her hunger strike earlier this week after the U.S. Army decided to allow her to undergo gender transition surgery.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Swedish Court: Detention Order for Julian Assange Stands appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Brown University Provides Free Tampons for all!

Brown University, located in Providence, Rhode Island, has started providing free tampons and pads to its students. The university put pads and tampons in the women’s, men’s, and gender neutral bathrooms on campus, indicating that they’re a necessity, not a luxury item.

But the fact that the sanitary products were placed in men’s bathrooms has, of course, led some people to get their panties in a wad over trans bathroom access…again. For example, Daily Caller writer Blake Neff stated:

The decision reflects the view, embraced by Brown’s student government, that not all who menstruate are women. After all, a biological woman could declare herself to be man and start using the men’s restroom, while continuing to menstruate like usual.

But let’s just ignore the haters and embrace the good news here–this is a really cool thing for Brown University to do.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Is WikiLeaks sacrificing the personal privacy of innocent people in its mission for transparency? On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that the organization’s decision to publish the Saudi Cables last year–in which about a half-million documents from the Saudi Foreign Ministry were made public–exposed the sensitive personal information of hundreds of ordinary citizens. Among those exposed are rape victims, the mentally ill, and LGBT individuals who were essentially “outed” by the leaks.

The cables were published last year, but the AP’s report sheds some light on how WikiLeaks often goes beyond its stated mission, harming the privacy of innocent individuals who may themselves be left vulnerable by leaked documents. The organization claims that the transparency it brings about “creates a better society for all people,” but some of the information exposed is not just embarrassing for the citizens involved–it could even put them in danger.

For example, the AP notes that the leaks include the name of a gay Saudi citizen who was arrested for homosexuality. This “outing” could have profound consequences for the individual, considering that the illegality of being gay in the Kingdom “can lead to social ostracism, a prison sentence, or even death.”

Wikileaks fired back on Twitter, denying that it leaked anything that the government did not already know and alleging that the AP was simply bringing back an old story to stir up controversy in an election year:

No, WikiLeaks did not disclose “gays” to the Saudi govt. Data is from govt & not leaked by us. Story from 2015. Re-run now due to election.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 23, 2016

The organization also tweeted about the importance of the Saudi cables, noting that it exposed important information about the Kingdom that was not being covered by the media:

WikiLeaks’ #Saudi Cables reveal the Kingdom’s foreign media manipulation strategies https://t.co/e3cx2LIJPA pic.twitter.com/JOUlml7ous

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 23, 2016

This isn’t the first time that the site has exposed personal information. Last month, when the organization leaked thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee, it included the credit card and social security numbers of a few dozen people, the report notes.

Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, has attempted to be a strong advocate for privacy in the past, penning a New York Times op-ed on the necessity of protecting privacy in a “surveillance society.” However, while he criticizes modern-day companies and the government for eroding the privacy of individuals, his organization has clearly done the same by leaking Saudi citizens’ personal information.

There is no evidence that the exposure of the information was intentional, but it brings to light some interesting dilemmas facing the organization and its mission: is there a way to be completely transparent without making innocent individuals vulnerable? And how much is too much when it comes to leaking sensitive information? The AP report just reinforces the ethical and moral issues surrounding WikiLeaks, resurfacing debates that have been around since the site launched and will undoubtedly continue as the site leaks additional information.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Did WikiLeaks Expose the Private Information of Innocent Saudi Citizens? appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of last year, the United Nations launched a working group to discuss the “arbitrary detention” of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Assange has been living in London’s Ecuadorian embassy since 2012, after his 2010 arrest in London, where he was brought in on charges regarding sexual assault and molestation in Sweden.

Both of the women who reported these assaults have remained anonymous in the press, but police have revealed that both incidents took place in August 2010. One of the charges was dropped in 2015, but the other still stands today. In a controversial move that alienated him from several political allies, the Ecuadorian ambassador granted Assange political asylum on the grounds that Ecuador has historically protected those who are vulnerable. Assange was concerned that if he was deported to Sweden, he might then be deported to the United States, where his involvement with Wikileaks could lead to him being tried for treason–and, according to Assange and his supporters, could face the death penalty. In July 2015, Assange requested asylum in France but his request was denied by Francois Hollande. For a series of several months, British police forces did guard the Ecuadorian embassy but they never made overt threats or attempts to forcibly remove Assange from his place of refuge.

The Guardian ran a poll this week to gauge popular opinion on the United Nation’s ruling that Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained–66 percent of Britons polled felt that the UN had made the wrong call. British politicians also fell into this camp–Prime Minister David Cameron said that the only person detaining Assange was “himself” and Secretary of State Philip Hammond rejected the UN decision via Twitter.

The UN may have handed down a ruling from on high, but British law enforcement still has agency over how to proceed with Assange. Assange has called the UN’s decision a victory that is legally binding, but the overwhelmingly negative response from British officials has led Assange to remain within the Ecuadorian embassy for the time being.  Swedish officials have supported the British decision to reject the UN ruling, leaving Assange essentially in the exact same position he was before the UN working group was formed. The UN has claimed that he should be allowed to walk free of the embassy and is even entitled to compensation but it did not specify how and when the UK and Sweden should go about dropping the charges against him and ensuring his reintegration into society.

The UN has effectively asked two governments to abandon a sexual assault case for no better reason than that the defendant is living a life of relative discomfort. Neither of these governments have tortured or committed any form of violence against Assange, they simply want to bring him in for questioning and put him on trial if necessary. Assange’s ruling should not be considered a landmark case because it is not one that will apply to any other situation. If any other criminal sought refuge within an embassy for several years, he would still be asked to undergo questioning and trial after leaving his place of asylum. Assange may have the satisfaction of a UN stamp of approval but the ruling likely has no leg to stand on in a legal setting.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Julian Assange’s Partial Victory: A UN Declaration with No Teeth appeared first on Law Street.