It’s Getting To Look A Lot Like Censorship Everywhere I Go!
And Assange’s Incarceration sounds a lot like vengeance, not some legal process.
In the view of the US government, many of the WikiLeaks documents are still classified, and reading classified documents without clearance is illegal. Critics say the warning is censorship.
Some US government warning have suggested that a federal employee would be breaking the law by reading one of these newspapers reporting on classified State Department documents published on the WikiLeaks website.
Imagine you’re a soldier in Iraq seeking to keep up with world events, so you forgo the TMZs of the cyber world in favor of real news on a site like CBS or CNN or Fox. You click on a story about the WikiLeaks release of thousands of State Department cables – and up pops a government-placed box informing you that if you proceed to the story you will be breaking the law.
Huh? Welcome to one of the more bewildering tangents of the WikiLeaks information dump: the clash between the principle of a censorship-free Internet and the government’s need to protect certain information – and the sources of that information.
The federal government reasons that, published or not, the cables released by WikiLeaks are still classified documents. So it is warning employees from the Library of Congress to its far-flung foot soldiers not to access WikiLeaks and the mirror sites it and other information activists are feverishly setting up.
In some cases the warnings have extended even to accessing media reports about the disclosures. Accessing classified information without clearance is tantamount to breaking the law, the warnings go, and could damage one’s government career or even end it.
Federal agencies are not blocking WikiLeaks and mirror websites, but some government employee advocates deem the warnings a form of censorship.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has made censorship-free Internet access a top priority of her dealings with authoritarian countries like China, some rights activists note. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, they add, the US government is violating its own policies.
The State Department was drawn into the censorship controversy after at least two universities warned students that they could be jeopardizing future diplomatic careers by accessing WikiLeaks documents still considered classified by the government.
A State Department employee and alumnus of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs warned school officials that students interested in a diplomatic career should not access the documents, according to an e-mail sent to students last week. The State Department employee said that accessing or disseminating the documents “would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information,” according to the e-mail.
The State Department employee also advised against discussing the documents on social network sites like Facebook or Twitter, the e-mail said.
The Boston University School of Law's career services office issued a similar warning. It said the security clearances needed for many government jobs could be jeopardized by the unauthorized accessing of classified documents.
The State Department is stressing that any such warnings are not the official policy of the department. Spokesman P.J. Crowley says the action “sounds like an over-zealous employee.” Mr. Crowley told The Huffington Post that State Department employees were instructed "not to access the WikiLeaks site and download posted documents using an unclassified network, since these documents are still classified.”
But he said “no advice” had been given to anyone beyond the department.
The Office of Budget and Management sent out a memo Friday instructing federal agencies to review clearance levels, ensure that employees not have more access than necessary, and restrict the use of equipment such as flash drives.
The lengthy memo concludes with the rather Orwellian suggestion that “federal employees and contractors who believe they may have inadvertently accessed or downloaded classified or sensitive information on computers that access the web via non-classified government systems, or without prior authorization, should contact their information security offices for assistance.”
Detention of WikiLeaks founder is focus of demonstrations today as speculation grows over legal move by US authorities
Protests will be held around the world today against the detention of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.
Demonstrations are planned in the capitals of Spain, the Netherlands, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico and Peru to demand Assange's release, the re-establishment of the WikiLeaks domain name and the restoration of Visa and Mastercard credit services to allow supporters to donate money to the whistleblowing site.
A statement on the Spanish-language website Free WikiLeaks said: "We seek the liberation of Julian Assange in United Kingdom territory." The website called on protesters to gather at 6pm (17.00 GMT) in Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia and Seville and three other Spanish cities.
It also calls for "the re-establishment of the WikiLeaks (wikileaks.org) internet domain," and the restoration of Visa and MasterCard credit card services to enable the "freedom to move money" because no one has "proved Assange's guilt", nor charged WikiLeaks with any crime.
Assange is in Wandsworth prison in south London after being refused bail on Tuesday. Sweden is seeking his extradition over allegations of sexual assault.
His lawyers said yesterday they were preparing for a possible indictment by the US authorities.
Jennifer Robinson said her team had heard from "several different US lawyers rumours that an indictment was on its way or had happened already, but we don't know".
According to some reports, Washington is seeking to prosecute Assange under the 1917 act, which was used unsuccessfully to try to gag the New York Times when it published the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s. However, despite escalating rhetoric over the past fortnight, no charges have yet been lodged, and government sources say they are unaware any such move is being prepared.
Robinson said Assange's team did not believe the US had grounds to prosecute him but understood that Washington was "looking closely at other charges, such as computer charges, so we have one eye on it".
Earlier this week, the US attorney general, Eric Holder, said the US had been put at risk by the flood of confidential diplomatic documents released by WikiLeaks and he authorized a criminal investigation.
Assange Lawyer: US Wants To Get Their "Mitts" On Wikileaks Founder
Julian Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, discussed the fate of the jailed WikiLeaks founder with Sir David Frost on Al Jazeera TV, maintaining that US ...See all stories on this topic »
Since he first landed in a London jail upon his arrest on Tuesday, the only thing that WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange has been requesting is access to a computer.
Of course -- what else would you expect the mastermind behind the online whistleblowing operation that has exposed the closely-guarded secrets of the world's most powerful countries to want?
In a wide-ranging telephone interview with The Huffington Post on Friday, Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens described his jailhouse visit with his client, claimed that the U.S. State Department may be prepared to work out a deal with Swedish prosecutors of a grand jury meeting in Virginia to consider charges against Assange and expressed his fears that his own family is being intimidated by unknown security personnel. And Stephens said he has not discussed the allegations of rape and sexual molestation made by two women with Assange yet, though he criticized the Swedish prosecutors for resurrecting the charges after they were initially dropped by the country's chief prosecutor.
Assange, who has been kept in the same cell once occupied by Oscar Wilde, is in good spirits and upbeat, "though he's not chuffed to be in jail where he's being kept in Victorian conditions," according to Stephens, who visited his client on Thursday at , where he was recently transferred from the main section to an isolation unit. Since he didn't bring three sets of clothes, as required in the British penal system, Assange wears a grey tracksuit provided by the jail. He has no material to read -- "it hasn't been library day" and the jail removed several treadmills in recent years so he has been unable to exercise, says Stephens -- and British daytime TV bores him ("he's not a TV watcher anyway").
Stephens, who isn't allowed to visit Assange again until Monday, the day before a court hearing in his case, says that he has not been contacted by the U.S. Justice Department or the State Department, both of which are reportedly seeking to get him extradited to the U.S. to face possible espionage charges.
Stephens says that he has heard that the State Department -- 250,000 of whose diplomatic cables to the great embarrassment of the U.S. and its allies -- has obtained permission from a federal judge to disclose the grand jury's existence "to the Swedes and the Swedes are proposing to effectively drop their charges if more significant charges come through from the grand jury," though he admits that he has no firsthand knowledge of such a deal.
The Justice Department declined comment to The Huffington Post and a State Department spokesman said he was unaware of such a deal with Swedish prosecutors. Swedish officials, including the lawyer for the two women making the allegations against Assange, did not return calls for comment.
Though U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said that prosecutors are exploring a range of possible charges against Assange, whose other lawyer Janet Robinson told reporters that an indictment of her client is imminent, the case could be a difficult one. Any U.S. prosecution of Assange would face , according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.
"We are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it," the report said.
Such a prosecution creates First Amendment and diplomatic hurdles "based on concerns about government censorship," the report said.
Next Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the potential application of U.S. espionage laws to the WikiLeaks case -- the first such congressional hearing since the organization made headlines by leaking documents on U.S. foreign policy and military operations earlier this year.
In addition, leaders in Russia, Brazil, and Assange's native Australia have rallied to support him, calling him a political prisoner. Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd recently said, "The blame for any violations of the law should fall on the persons who gave the documents to Wikileaks. The Americans are responsible for that."
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, whose Russia is portrayed as a relentlessly corrupt country in some of the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, said it was hypocritical of the U.S. government to try to prosecute Assange. "If it is full democracy, then why have they hidden Mr. Assange in prison," Putin said during a press conference Thursday. "That's what, democracy?"
Meanwhile, several loosely-affiliated Internet hackers continue their cyber-attacks against companies such as Mastercard and Visa, which have turned off the money spigot that has been helping fund WikiLeaks' operations -- without the cooperation of Assange, says Stephens. "He was surprised by these attacks -- he says he had nothing to do with it."
Stephens said that he has not explicitly discussed the particulars of the Swedish allegations with his client. "He hasn't expressed anything to me about the women... there have been reports about this, but I try to keep his mind off of this." He described his frustration that the case was revived after Sweden's director of public prosecutions dropped the case in early November after reviewing the files. "She said there was not a shred of evidence," said Stephens.
WikiLeaks and Stephens have insisted that the charges are politically motivated -- the lawyer says that Assange has not expressed his opinion on whether he was set up. "A number of people have told me that it's like "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo," but he has not said anything about it," says Stephens.
A lawyer for the women accusing Assange said that his clients are annoyed at the suggestion that their claims are politically motivated. "They were attacked by Mr. Assange and then they are treated like perpetrators themselves," attorney Claes Borgstrom . "He has molested them and then sacrificed them for his own interests."
One woman claims that Assange "forcibly parted her legs, preventing her from moving... then had intercourse without a condom," according to prosecutors. The second woman accused Assange of having unprotected sex with her while she was sleeping.
As for the steady drip of diplomatic cables that continue to be published every day by WikiLeaks, they will continue no matter what happens to Assange, says Stephens. "Before he went in [to jail], there was a discussion within WikiLeaks and their traditional media partners and the releases will continue according to a preset schedule, with or without him."
Sinister Attack on WikiLeaks to Cover Up Imperialist Crimes
Democrat Diane Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, notorious for covering up CIA torture, called for Assange to be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act. Democratic turncoat Joe Lieberman, head of the Senate’s Homeland Security Committee, wants to investigate the New York Times as well. And Attorney General Eric Holder vows to “close the gaps in current U.S. legislation” by enacting new laws infringing on freedom of speech. But that may take some time. They yearn for an Official Secrets Act like in Britain, so they could stop publication of anything by slapping a “D Notice” on it. They wish they were back in the post-9/11 days when they rammed through the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act with a near-unanimous vote before anyone bothered to read it.
The December 7 arrest in London of Julian Assange, the founder and editor-in-chief of the Internet investigative site WikiLeaks, is a threat to freedom of the press and an attempt to silence critics who expose the bloody deeds of imperialism. We are convinced, along with many others, that Assange is innocent of the trumped up accusations of the crimes of rape and sexual molestation that are being manipulated by Swedish authorities to request his detention and extradition. It is clear that sinister forces are pushing the persecution of this courageous man, and his life could be in danger.
When WikiLeaks published thousands of confidential diplomatic communications, it exposed the systematic mendacity, insincerity and hypocrisy of foreign diplomacy.
But was anyone really surprised by these revelations? They were more entertaining than shocking. Worldwide and throughout history politicians and the ruling elite have practiced deception to manipulate the masses and each other.
Truth is so uncompromising, so indifferent to consequences and, therefore, so rare. We all have secrets we would rather not share with the world, but should institutions that involve and affect so much of society have a right to keep secrets, especially those that misrepresent and manipulate?
Is the world better off living in lies or knowing the truth?
With the growing use and application of the Internet, that question may be academic. The truth will out more now than ever. The more appropriate question may be, can we handle it?
The U.S. and other world governments are certainly having trouble handling it. They are furious with Wiki-Leaks and are quickly retaliating by bullying websites and Internet providers to remove the embarrassing diplomatic documents.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is the target of an international fatwa by infuriated governments. He is being accused of everything from rape to espionage.
Those folks who share their government’s condemnation of WikiLeaks believe national security justifies the suppression of truth. They argue that the lives of citizens, spies and military personnel are jeopardized by exposing the truth.
However, what endangers any nation’s citizens and troops is war — and America is fighting two very dubious wars now, one started by lies and both perpetuated with propaganda. It can be argued that the suppression of truth is more detrimental to human life than is the exposure of truth.
Confusing patriotism with government is one of the more effective tools used by governments to manipulate and mislead their citizens.
Those who defend government skullduggery and censorship as practical realities necessary for national welfare are willing to live with lies, trust the liars, and consider both to be acts of patriotism. But governments are no more trustworthy or entitled to sanctioned secrecy than are other institutions.
The Catholic Church actively sought to conceal the truth about its pedophiliac priests, even as children continued to fall victim to sex abuse. With no apparent compunction, the church fights court decisions ordering it to release information regarding these heinous crimes.
Would any reasonable person argue that this institution is entitled to keep its dirty secrets? Had WikiLeaks been around to expose the church, how many children would have been spared, and this depravity ended?
How many big corporations have betrayed public trust and endangered the health, welfare and safety of employees, customers and society, by and while concealing the truth? Toyota, Massey, BP, many large banks — the list could fill a metropolitan city’s phone book.
Government, because it is bigger and more powerful than any other institution, has a greater affect on society. It needs to be watched closely — one reason why free speech, e.g., a free press, was so important to America’s founding fathers, and one reason why tyrants’ first move is to curtail it.
The publication of the Pentagon Papers exposed the truth about the Vietnam War and hastened the end of that tragic debacle. How many people died to maintain government subterfuge?
With the decline of newspapers and broadcast, Internet media like WikiLeaks provide the sunlight needed to keep the machinations of government visible. The new media appears less restrained and timid about exposing government than the old media.
Imagine a world where truth is unavoidable because lies and deceptions are quickly uncovered. How would nations and all institutions behave in such a world? Certainly, judgment would be more accurate.
If truth becomes unavoidable, we all better learn how to handle it.
Randy Alcorn is a Santa Barbara County resident.
UK Should Have Investigated US War Crimes Instead Of Arresting Assange – Champika :
December 10, 2010, 8:20 Pm
UK Should Have Investigated US War Crimes Instead Of Arresting Assange – Champika :
December 10, 2010, 8:20 Pm
by Harischandra Gunaratna
Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka (JHU) on Thursday, commenting on the arrest of the WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange, said that what the United Kingdom should have done was not to arrest, but to investigate the alleged war crimes by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"It is the usual practice of this block of western countries to torture the person who exposes their wrong doings and WikiLeaks case is a clear example of such actions," Ranawaka pointed out
Addressing a news conference in Colombo the Minister said that the US has used cluster bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan and 650,000 persons had died in these two countries in particular as a result.
"Today the CIA is spying on the activities of United Nations and its Secretary General Banki kiMoon but they felt the pinch when WikiLeaks exposed them.
Ranawaka warned that the pro-LTTE Tamil expatriates in the west are trying to raise their ugly head again and have to be nipped in the bud before reaching alarming proportions.
He accused the opposition of conniving with the pro- LTTE elements in the UK, USA, Norway and some other western countries. He said the governments of those countries, depended on the LTTE because of their votes in their home electorates and the money contributed by them for their election campaigns.
"David Milliband had openly said that he supported the LTTE mainly because of the vote base of the Sri Lankan Tamil expatriates and the money contributed by them to his party coffers," he said.
Ranawaka said "I wouldn’t accept the commonly used term ‘Tamil Diaspora’ because these people are not without a country but have migrated to the West for economic gains. Now, they are demanding a separate state in Sri Lanka, living luxurious lives in Western countries."
"Now, there is no freedom of speech or expression in the UK," he said. In time to come Sri Lankans would need to obtain a visa from Nidiyavan, the self proclaimed leader of the pro LTTE Tamil Community in Norway, to visit the western countries," the Minister said.
WikiLeaks neither supports nor condemns the cyber attacks that have targeted its critics, it said Friday, just as it appears the attackers are mounting a fresh operation against Moneybookers.com.
The whistleblowing website wrote on its Twitter feed that it is not affiliated with Anonymous, a group of online activists that have attacked websites of companies that cut off services to WikiLeaks.
On its website, WikiLeaks went further.
"There has been no contact between any WikiLeaks staffer and anyone at Anonymous," said a statement there. "WikiLeaks has not received any prior notice of any of Anonymous' actions."
"We neither condemn nor applaud these attacks. We believe they are a reflection of public opinion on the actions of the targets," the statement continued, attributing the remarks to WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson.
Meanwhile, those with Anonymous appear to be looking for more computing power to use in attacks on websites such as Moneybookers.com.
Early on Friday, "Anonymous Operations" wrote on its Twitter feed that they had begun targeting Moneybookers.com, which banned WikiLeaks from using its services in August. Anonymous has been targeting companies that have halted business with WikiLeaks, including Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon.com and PostFinance, a Swiss financial institution.
The attacks against Moneybookers.com have been somewhat successful, with data showing the site was unavailable for some time on Friday morning, said Paul Mutton , a security analyst with Netcraft.
One of the tools used to attack Moneybookers.com is the LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon), which is a denial-of-service tool that sends garbage traffic to a website.
Those behind the attacks have set up command-and-control servers that can automatically issue instructions to computers running LOIC. Those command-and-control servers can issue commands via IRC chat channels and even Twitter, Mutton said. There is also a Web-based version of LOIC that can be manually configured to attack websites.
Security researchers have been monitoring chatter on IRC between those involved in Anonymous. There are indications that other people who control vast numbers of computers owned by people who are not aware they are infected with botnet code are interested in joining the action, said Amichai Schulman , chief technology officer for the security vendor Imperva.
Other research suggests that Anonymous would like to harness as many as 100,000 computers for an attack. Amazon.com still appears to be on the attack radar after other attempts to knock it offline failed.
"We have seen they were attempting to do it but they realized they don't have enough horsepower," Schulman said.
So far the attacks have not resulted in consistent disruption, as those websites are likely working with their ISPs and to have taken defensive measures.
"I don't really believe they will be able to knock down Amazon even if they use involuntary botnets," Schulman said. Amazon has "so much redundancy" built into its systems, he said.
Wikileaks 'Rape' Victims Had Hidden Agendas ... And I've Seen The Proof Says Julian Assange's lawyer
By ANGELLA JOHNSON
Last updated at 1:44 AM on 12th December 2010
Last updated at 1:44 AM on 12th December 2010
Accused: Julian Assange is in a British jail, fighting extradition to Sweden
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s lawyer says he has seen secret police documents that prove the whistleblower is innocent of rape claims made against him by two women in Stockholm.
Björn Hurtig, who is representing Mr Assange in Sweden, said the papers, which form part of the official Swedish investigation, reveal both women had ‘hidden agendas’ and lied about being coerced into having sex with Mr Assange, 39.
The freedom of information crusader is being held in Wandsworth jail in London while fighting extradition to face the accusations, which his defenders say are part of a plot to stop him releasing more embarrassing information on his website about governments worldwide.
Australian Mr Assange met both women at a seminar in Stockholm last August. After having intercourse with each, at different times, he faced sex charges – which he strenuously denies – that were withdrawn and then reinstated.
Mr Hurtig said in an exclusive interview from his Stockholm office: ‘From what I have read, it is clear that the women are lying and that they had an agenda when they went to the police, which had nothing to do with a crime having taken place.
‘It was, I believe, more about jealousy and disappointment on their part. I can prove that at least one of them had very big expectations for something to happen with Julian.’
He has asked for Swedish prosecutors’ permission to disclose more ‘sensational’ information.
‘If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade,’ he said. ‘If I could tell the British courts, I suspect it would make extradition a moot point.
‘But at the moment I’m bound by the rules of the Swedish legal system, which say that the information can only be used as evidence in this country. For me to do otherwise would lead to me being disbarred.’
Mr Hurtig, a top sex-crime defence lawyer, is ready to fly to London and present the evidence when Mr Assange appears in court this week – if he is given the all-clear.
Campaign: Supporters of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, hold posters with his photo during a protest in Madrid, Spain, this weekend. The protesters are wearing masks depicting anti-establishment figure from the movie 'V for Vendetta'
Mr Assange has not been charged yet. Mr Hurtig said that when they met, ‘I was struck by how good-looking he was. He gave off an aura of someone who was very self-assured and comfortable with himself – the way famous people do.
‘He denied vehemently that he had raped or in any way indulged in non-consensual sex. He was very upset. He kept saying, “How can they do this to me? I’ve done nothing wrong. They are trying to destroy my credibility.” He kept saying it was a witch-hunt and we must fight it.’
One of the women, a political activist in her 30s described as Miss A, claims she was unlawfully coerced and subjected to sexual molestation and deliberate molestation. The other woman, Miss B, who is in her 20s, has alleged he had sex with her without a condom while she was sleeping.
Mr Assange told Mr Hurtig he had a brief affair with Miss A – who had organised a seminar for the Centre-Left group Brotherhood Movement – while staying in her flat.
Miss B admitted in her police statement that she sought out Mr Assange after seeing him on TV and, clearly infatuated, attended the seminar he was giving. They had a ‘sexual encounter’ in a cinema on their first meeting and two days later had protected sex at her flat, 40 miles from Stockholm. But the woman told police that she woke up next morning to find him having sex with her without a condom.
‘This is what they are saying is rape,’ said Mr Hurtig. He said Mr Assange and Miss B parted on good terms, with Miss B buying his train ticket back to Stockholm. But Mr Hurtig said that after Mr Assange reneged on his promise to call her and failed to return her phone calls over the next few days, the drama took a ‘bizarre’ turn.
Miss B called the office of Miss A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar, asking the whereabouts of Mr Assange. During the conversation they realised that they had both been ‘victims of his charms’.
Mr Assange told Mr Hurtig he refused their request to take a test for sexually-transmitted diseases.
He said Miss B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy. It was then that she and Miss A walked into a police station and told their stories.
Mr Hurtig said: ‘I don’t believe Miss B felt she had been raped until she went to the police station. She was encouraged by a policewoman and a junior female prosecutor to think that way.
While I don’t think there was any conspiracy, Julian says he is being victimised because of his role with WikiLeaks. The fact that he has a high profile has made him a target for opponents.’
Mr Hurtig said that before leaving Sweden to lecture in Britain at the end of September, Mr Assange tried in vain several times to arrange an interview with Stockholm police.
The strong sense of women’s rights in Sweden means 53 rape allegations are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in Europe.
Also, under Swedish law there are gradations of rape. There is the most serious kind, involving major violence, ‘regular rape’, which could include a degree of violence, and ‘unlawful coercion’, which might involve putting emotional pressure on someone.
The case may turn on whether consensual sex turned into non-consensual sex – and whether a man’s decision not to use a condom can amount to a crime.
But Mr Hurtig remains confident that Mr Assange will get a fair hearing in Sweden.
‘This is not a banana republic,’ he said. ‘It’s just that when it comes to sex crimes, the police and prosecutors and members of the court seem to lose their ability to think logically. That said, I’m convinced that as soon as the case is heard in Sweden it will be thrown out.’
Sunday 12 December 2010
By Paddy Mcguffin
Human Rights campaigners accused the government yesterday of attempting to change the law to protect foreign war criminals from prosecution.
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, set to be debated by MPs today, contains a raft of proposals including new legislation to make it more difficult to get arrest warrants for offences such as war crimes.
The Bill calls for the amendment of "the process for issuing private arrest warrants for universal jurisdiction offences to ensure that they are issued only where there is a reasonable prospect of successful prosecution."
Universal jurisdiction offences incude crimes such as torture, human rights abuses and war crimes deemed so grave that they can be tried in a country even if the offences were committed elsewhere.
It is believed the proposal is directly related to an incident last year when an arrest warrant was issued for then Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni for alleged war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.
The warrant was granted by City of Westminster magistrates' court after it was ruled that sufficient evidence had been provided.
Then foreign secretary David Miliband condemned the issuing of the warrant and vowed to change the law to prevent it happening again.
The new Bill would remove the power to issue such warrants from magistrates and give them to the Director of Public Prosecutions under the supervision of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General would have the right to veto requests for arrest warrants regardless of the strength of the evidence. Campaigners argue that this is a political move and in breach of international law.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) is calling on people to write to their MPs urging them to vote against the Bill.
PSC campaigns director Sarah Colborne said: "The government have not managed to produce evidence of even one arrest warrant that was granted on insufficient evidence of war crimes.
"Our justice system should not be altered according to the wishes of senior politicians from Israel who are fearful of arrest because of decisions they have personally taken."
She added that the government "has a responsibility to uphold international law and bring those responsible for crimes, such as the massacre of over 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza and destruction of UN and civilian infrastructure, to justice."