In a stunning move, CIA Director William Burns moved to invoke “State Secrets Privilege” to halt a lawsuit brought by four Americans who allege that the CIA violated their Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully spying on them while meeting with WikiLeaks Publisher Julian Assange. Last December, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York ruled that the four plaintiffs could proceed with their lawsuit against the CIA.
The plaintiffs, including New York-based media attorney Deborah Hrbek and renowned civil and human rights attorney Margaret Ratner Kunstler, claim that not only were their meetings with Assange illegally surveilled, but that their computers and cell phones were seized, with all of their private and confidential communications with people having nothing to do with Julian Assange, downloaded and sent to the CIA.
The CIA’s declaration comes as the United States pushes closer to extraditing Assange from the UK. Just last week, attorneys representing the Department of Justice provided what it claims as “assurances” to the UK High Court that if extradited, Assange would not face the death penalty and that he could “seek” First Amendment protections. However, UK extradition law requires that defendants such as Assange be assured First Amendment protections, not simply given the right to “seek” them.
In response to the CIA’s decision to hide behind State Secrets Privilege, Richard Roth of the Roth Law Firm PLLC and attorney representing the four Americans suing the CIA stated, “On behalf of Plaintiffs to the federal court litigation, we find it extremely disheartening that the CIA refuses to even file an Answer to the Complaint. Instead, it chooses to hide behind the State Secrets Privilege when it is indisputable that our clients have nothing to do with any investigation by the CIA or any governmental agency. It is also patently unfair and unjust – indeed, and impossible — for Plaintiffs to oppose a “secret” motion submitted by the CIA exclusively to the Court that neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel are even allowed to read. The CIA’s position raises one logical question; if there were truly no facts to support the allegations in the Complaint, then why can’t the CIA simply deny each of them.”
Background
American lawyers and journalists are suing the CIA, alleging that they were wrongfully spied on while visiting Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The Honorable John G. Koeltl, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, refused to grant the CIA’s motion to dismiss the litigation, finding the claim that the federal government was involved in an illicit scheme to seize the Plaintiff’s electronic devices should continue against the CIA. In denying the CIA’s motion, the Court stated: “[t]he plaintiffs’ complaint contains sufficient allegations that the CIA and Pompeo, through Morales and UC Global, violated their reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their electronic devices.” The Court went on to state that because “in an April 2017 speech, Pompeo ‘pledged that his office would embark upon a ‘long term’ campaign against WikiLeaks,’ ” there was sufficient reason for the case to continue.
