Julian Assange

See also: Protest Melbourne Friday 6:30pm to stop extradition of Julian Assange by outlaw U.S. regime (19/2/20)

Courageous Australian MPs, Andrew Wilkie and George Christensen, visit Julian Assange in jail and call on the UK government to stop his extradition to the US, warning about the WikiLeaks founder's deteriorating condition. Below is a link to the excellent Australian ABC interview with Christensen (LNP) and Andrew Wilkie (Independent), who defend Assange extremely well. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/australian-mps-visit-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-in-prison/11978894

Interview with George Christensen in this news-video from RT.

Title was: "Australian action to help Assange as extradition hearing approaches". Donations can be made to: gofundme.com/f/melbourne4wikileaks-bringassangehome.

Julian Assange’s extradition hearing starts on Monday 24th of this month. To mark the occasion and to help increase awareness in his hometown of Melbourne, Melbourne4WikiLeaks is holding a rally at the State Library of Victoria at 6:30pm on the evening of Friday 21st February.

We feel that it is important to keep pressure on the Australian Government to intervene with both the UK and US in order to stop the extradition and bring Julian home.

Additionally, we are aware from his legal team and his father’s visits that events supporting him in his hometown greatly lift his spirits.

Time is running out for Julian and it is vitally important at this time to step up the campaign.

You can help in a number of ways:

Firstly, you can come to the Rally where we will be joined by speakers including Caitlin Johnstone, Julian Hill and others as well as a live video cross to Julian’s father, John Shipton in London. There will also be music and a special video presentation.

You can find details of the No Extradition Rally at https://www.facebook.com/events/178087276737493/?active_tab=about

Please invite friends and share widely.

Secondly, you should write to your local Federal member and/or Senator. The best way to find who your local Member is via https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian_Search_Results?q=&mem=1&par=-1&gen=0&ps=0

Which also provides links to phone numbers, email and postal addresses.

Finally, but importantly, you can help us to cover costs of the rally by donating to our GoFundMe fundraiser at
https://www.gofundme.com/f/melbourne4wikileaks-bringassangehome?sharetype=teams&member=2467358&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=customer&utm_campaign=p_na+share-sheet&pc_code=ot_co_dashboard_a&rcid=62fb09c32cf94166afdd90b50d09580a

We look forward to seeing you there.

Jacob & Simon

Melbourne4WikiLeaks

Melbourne4WikiLeaks on all social media platforms…. [email protected].

Suelette Drefus, Julian Burnside, Kristinn Hrajnsson, and Lizzie O'Shea were the main people in this event. I have transcribed some of Suelette Drefus, Technology Researcher and Author's excellent summary of Julian Assange's contributions to the public internet and free software. She also displayed courage in criticising powerful people on stage. At around 1h 44m into the video she has the courage to criticise corporate media journalist, Peter Grest, for his repetition of opinions used to slur Julian's credentials as a journalist and publisher. Interesting to wonder why Grest was released without explanation after an international outcry from the same western block that is either persecuting Assange or leaving him to rot.

The film of the event is now on twitter broadcasts. The introduction to the main speakers starts around 17.40 minutes:https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1YqKDnymbLwJV?fbclid=IwAR2MhE7PGdDm6ZN0lbSn25y5AdS9QQftWBsJZ_uOpZUDua_3WZPRb5bi74c

Excerpts from Suelette Drefus's comments on Whistleblowers round the world.

[Suelette Drefus has known Julian Assange since about 1994. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suelette_Dreyfus: She is a technology researcher, journalist, and writer. Her fields of research include information systems, digital security and privacy, the impact of technology on whistleblowing, health informatics[6] and e-Education. Her work examines digital whistleblowing as a form of freedom of expression and the right of dissent from corruption. She is a researcher and lecturer in the Department of Computing and Information Systems at the University of Melbourne, as well as the Principal Researcher on an international research project on the impact of digital technologies on whistleblowing.]

LIZZIE O'SHEA ATO whistleblower, Richard Boyle, may get 161 years in prison for ...

SUELETTE DREFUS: Whistleblowers. The good news is they are at least being properly recognised as whistleblowers. The bad news is we have a long way to travel yet. The ATO Boyle case... this is not some obscure thing in another country outside Australia. This is a whistleblower who blew the whistle on the ATO about not following its own policies and procedures about garnishing money out of peoples' bank accounts. [...] It's really important to follow policies and procedures because otherwise you end up with an authoritarian state, which is not what we all signed up for.

But it's not only the Boyle case. It's internationally. Its the Jeffrey Sterling case of a former CIA officer who was a whistleblower. This case is very interesting ... in the United States because we think it's the first case where a whistleblower has been convicted on the basis of metadata. [...] we have the little electronic bread crumb trail. [...]

We've seen another disturbing trend. In Europe we've seen the Anna Garrido [Ramos] case in Spain. She worked in the Madrid town hall. She revealed corruption at a local level, and ten years on, the truth came out. It went all the way up to national politics and caused the fall of the government and president in Spain.

We've seen the case of Andreo Franzoso, revealing fraud in a state-owned company in Italy. And Antoine Deltour, the Luxleaks case, revealing sweet deals by his government behind the scenes - tax lurks for large multinational companies. We've seen the Gupta case in South Africa - cosy ties between a wealthy family and the president's office. And we've also seen the John Doe case and the Panama Papers.

One of the most disturbing trends that we've seen, however, more recently, in Australia, is that government is not only going after whistleblowers; it's now going after the journalists, as we've heard recently. It's going after the lawyers, in the case of Bernard Cleary. And, I might say, earlier this year, I was due to speak at the largest cybersecurity conference in Australia, and merely, for floating the idea as a thought-bubble in a conversation about my talk - of maybe it would be interesting to have a teleconference at the conference with Edward Snowden - I was actually censored from speaking at the conference. I was disinvited from the conference, in part because I was told, I might say things that weren't representative enough of Australian values. I like that - 'Australian values'. It's important that our cybersecurity centre should be the organisation whose mission statement is to set Australian values, but the idea that, because I had spoken out on issues regarding whistleblowing and the impact of digital technologies on it, somehow I was too 'dangerous' to speak. It's quite extraordinary. So now, it's not just the lawyers, it's not just the journalists, it's not just the whistleblowers, it's also the academics.

But I did want to say one bit of hope. There is a little bit of shining light in here. And this is again a contribution that I think Wikileaks has made to the landscape. There has been a significant expansion in the number of laws around the world. [Continues to talk about the laws. Julian Burnside interjects to say that the Australian law doesn't work.]
[...]

Assange before he became an asylum-seeker

SUELETTE DREFUS: I've known Julian for a very long time. I got to know him around 1994. [...] We got to know each other in part because he was co-running the first free public access internet site here in Australia. And it was a haven for artists and writers and activists and creatives, programmers - people who wanted to contribute things to the community. And even then he was an [?] publisher. He would allow people to publish things on the site which were controversial and difficult, including articles backed up by evidence, scientology, and a set of other things. And he was pretty bright. He dealt with lawyers' letters and threats, and other assaults on it, but he was willing to stand up for it. And I knew him all during this period because he was very involved in the Free Software movement. Those of you who don't know much about the technology side of things, you obviously know Julian has not just got technical skills, but you may not know that for more than a decade, he contributed an enormous amount - thousands and thousands of hours to developing free software. And, in fact, for some of you who might use an Apple computer, there is probably free software in there by Julian Assange. So, he wrote software that helped to develop one of the operating systems - a variety of Unix. Julian did all of this labour for free and he wrote software that helped make the news function of the early internet function in a more optimized way, which was easier for more people to get news. He designed and wrote - and I was part of the project - then developed the first opensource software that was deniable cryptography file system. This was envisaged to be used by human rights groups around the world. It allowed you to store, for example, on a hard drive, multiple layers of encrypted files, so that, if a human rights workers taking witness statements, are in Guatamala - that genocide against the original peoples [?Cambodia], in Sri Lanka - took witness statements in rural areas and put them on these hard drives they could add a layer of something else on the top, with a different password and, if they were seized and tortured, they could give the password to that layer with very little information on it, and the other layer would never be discoverable. He wrote free software available - gave it away - to everyone, which allowed people to test the cybersecurity robustness of their computer systems connected to the internet. Much of this is not known about Julian. And, it's an incredible act of altruism to contribute in a free software community, but that, in itself, was many years of work.
[...]

Contribution of Wikileaks to National Security Reporting

LIZZIE O'SHEA: [...] What was the particular contribution of Wikileaks to this field of National Security reporting? It's obviously Wikileak's mode of publishing [...]access to source material [...] talk about that from the perspective of a journalist.

SUELETTE DREFUS: [...] So, a lot of the media has focused on all sorts of criticisms of Julian that are [?] pedantic, small mind things, but has missed the big picture, and that's unfortunate. Because, if you look at the ways in which he, as the editor of Wikileaks, has formed how we receive news and information, they are quite extraordinary. So the anonymous digital drop-offs are a Wikileaks invention. We look around today and we see the New York Times, Bloomberg media, Gizmodo, for those of you who use it, NBC, [?] Norwegian, CBC, which is the ABC of Canada, as well as the ABC here, using anonymous digital drop-offs for whistleblowers to provide information to journalists in the public interest. That came about because of Julian Assange. We see the popularised use of data set journalism. That is, taking large sets of data, analysing it, and looking for patterns, trying to understand what's really happening, and then tell people the story. That is largely because of Julian Assange. We see the kind of invented verification journalism, that is, not that you just do the analysis with the data set, but you publish it with the story. You do that to prove to your readers the story you're telling is truthful. And that's extra important in an era of fake news. That is largely true and popularised because of Julian ASsange. We see collaborative global partnerships in journalism accross countries and publications on a scale that was never seen before, across different countries and organisations, from 90+ different organisations, not in the same company, not in the same media family, because of Julian Assange. And we see a popularisation of cybersecurity training of journalists - much more widespread. I've been very active in some of it. That has largely happened because of Julian Assange. So, these are all really important innovations for journalism, but it actually goes beyond that. We are sitting in a state library. Libraries are valuable archives of information. Julian Assange and Wikileaks has created perhaps the most important archive on line library of information, of data, around international - US international - public policy-making and decision-making - particularly of war-decisions; war-policy, that, for the modern era, exists today. And is not behind closed walls in a private collection. It's not even inaccessible, in books on a shelf; it's available to everyone free today. And that is because of Julian Assange's vision. So, I think those are all things that are really important to recognise, that in their totality are extraordinary. Any one of them would have been a kind of life-time achievement for someone who is a publisher, a journalist, who cares about access to public information, but all of them together provide a life's work over a decade and a half that is just exceptional.

NOTES

In this episode of Going Underground, Afshin Rattansi speaks to ex-Australian deputy PM Barnaby Joyce about the persecution of Julian Assange. He strongly opposes his extradition to the US, saying this is a matter of Australian sovereignty, and that Julian Assange is no different to the other newspapers that published the same leaks.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) is busy finalising its consideration of the Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press.

The Chair, Mr Andrew Hastie MP, said ‘The Committee has received considerable evidence from submitters and witnesses regarding the media and their ability to operate effectively within Australia’s democratic society. All members are endeavouring to achieve a bipartisan report, which delivers tangible areas for reform and consideration. This will not be possible by the end of November.’

The Deputy Chair, Hon Anthony Byrne MP, said ‘As this inquiry has progressed, the complexity and nuances of the issues raised have become acutely emphasised to the Committee. The ability for the Committee to make targeted recommendations is reliant on time, and the Committee would rather report later to ensure that occurs.’

The Committee has written to the Attorney-General informing him of the later reporting requirement, with the undertaking to present a report in the week before Christmas at the latest.

Further information on the inquiry can be obtained from the Committee’s website.
See also Can do better's earlier article announcing this inquiry here.

Kristinn Hrafnsson - Editor in Chief of WikiLeaks
Suelette Dreyfus - technology researcher, journalist, and writer
Julian Burnside QC - part of Assange's legal team
Lizzie O'Shea - lawyer, writer, broadcaster

Recent raids on broadcasters, journalists and whistleblowers in Australia for precisely the kind of journalism that has cost Julian Assange a decade of his life, has prompted debate about the role of a free press in democracies such as Australia and of investigative journalists doing national security reporting. (Reservations required but event is free.)

What is happening to Journalism & Julian Assange?

ORDER TICKETS HERE
Wed 4 December, 6.30 pm
Victorian State Library - Village Roadshow Theatrette on La Trobe St

Victorian State Library, Village Roadshow Theatrette - enter at La Trobe St

Dec. 4th, 2019
Begin: 18:30
End: 20:30

Anti-war lyricist and singer, Roger Waters, who is identified world-wide with Pink Floyd, discusses Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s latest extradition hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court and why it makes him ashamed to be English. The British magistrate is acting like an American puppet, taking advice from the US barrister. He explains why he believes the UK and US are attempting to kill Julian, why the extradition case shouldn’t even be happening and is a mockery of British justice. He talks about the protest that Australian journalist, John Pilger, and he, led recently, before a crowd of a thousand people. No British mainstream media reported it. That is how they control the kind of information people need to know. He compared British head-in-the-sand behaviour with the mass protests in Chile against the neoliberal US-backed President Sebastián Piñera and how the military crackdown is reminiscent of the Pinochet era.

Please consider attending the PEN Sydney annual Day of the Imprisoned Writer event 15/11/19. This year, Quentin Dempster will interview Jennifer Robinson, counsel to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/challenge-what-you-know-whats-really-happening-to-julian-assange-tickets-75281120859" "What’s really happening to Julian Assange? What has Australia done to protect his welfare? And why aren’t we hearing more about the most intriguing and complex threats to liberal democracy of our time?" Here is a link to the November edition of the Sydney PEN magazine on the Day of the Imprisoned Writer. https://pen.org.au

About this Event

What’s really happening to Julian Assange? What has Australia done to protect his welfare? And why aren’t we hearing more about the most intriguing and complex threats to liberal democracy of our time?

Walkley Award-winning journalist, author and broadcaster Quentin Dempster will interview Jennifer Robinson, counsel to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Quentin will ask the hard-hitting questions to get to the heart of the tough issues around WikiLeaks and Assange, free speech and press freedom – and Assange’s almost decade long legal struggle on Day of the Imprisoned Writer.

Be there 6pm for a 6:30pm start. Free parking after 6pm at Broadway Shopping Centre and $13 night parking available opposite the venue after 6pm.

This event is hosted by PEN Sydney with support from Copyright Agency's Cultural Fund. All proceeds go to PEN Sydney to continue to defend freedom of expression: campaigning on behalf of writers who have been silenced by persecution or imprisonment.

This event is supported by MEAA, and UTS Schools of Journalism and Law.

Find out more at www.pen.org.au

Jennifer Robinson

Jen is an Australian barrister at Doughty Street Chambers in London. She has a broad practice in human rights, media law, public law and international law, representing states, individuals, media organisations, journalists and activists in cases before international, regional and domestic courts. She has a particular focus on free speech and civil liberties. Jen is the longest-serving member of Assange’s legal team.

Over the past nine years, she has been involved in all aspects of the various legal struggles faced by Assange and WikiLeaks, including advising on and negotiating the publication of Cablegate, acting for Assange in the Swedish extradition proceedings, acting for WikiLeaks in the proceedings against Chelsea Manning, advising on the financial blockade, engagement with UN human rights mechanisms and in relation to Ecuador’s request to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion proceedings on the right to asylum.

Her other recent cases include acting for the BBC World Service in UN engagement over the persecution of BBC journalists by Iran, acting for a Romanian journalist working for the Overseas Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) being sued by an Azerbaijan MP, acting for Vanuatu in the Chagos Islands case before the International Court of Justice, successfully challenging a sweeping anti-protest injunction obtained by a major multinational corporation and having the UK government’s fracking policy declared unlawful on the grounds the government failed to consider scientific developments in climate change. She has advised a wide range of media organisations, including the New York Times, Bloomberg, WikiLeaks and the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists.

She is passionate about using the law as a tool for social justice and to build power in movements for positive change. To that end, Jen created a global human rights program – the Bertha Justice Initiative – which has invested millions in strategic litigation and education for the next generation of movement lawyers. She has also long represented the West Papuan movement for self-determination and its leader in exile, Benny Wenda.

She is a founding board member of the Grata Fund, Australia’s first independent, crowd-sourced public interest litigation fund and sits on the boards of the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights and the Bonavero Institute for Human Rights at Oxford University, where she was a Rhodes scholar.

Quentin Dempster

Quentin Dempster is a Walkley Award-winning journalist, author and broadcaster with decades of experience. He is a veteran of the ABC newsroom and has worked with a number of print titles including the Sydney Morning Herald. He was awarded an Order of Australia in 1992 for services to journalism and is the former Chairman of the Walkley Foundation.

Image credit: Wikileaks/Twitter

In this episode, Afshin Rattansi of Going Underground speaks to legendary journalist and filmmaker John Pilger about Julian Assange’s latest extradition hearing on Monday, which Pilger attended. Pilger discusses how Assange appeared at the trial, the bias of the judge against the journalist, the lack of mainstream media coverage of his persecution, his health and conditions in Belmarsh Prison, CIA spying on the WikiLeaks founder, and more. Next, Afshin Rattansi speaks to Chris Williamson MP about Assange’s extradition hearing, Williamson's motion in the House of Commons to condemn Assange's treatment, why his persecution is of international importance, the silence of mainstream media on Julian Assange, the lack of vocal outrage from Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour front bench over Assange’s treatment, and more!

Here is further explantion of the huge significance of the judgement handed down against the US Democrats' attempt to charge Julian Assange with espionage and somehow prosecute a non-US citizen as if they were a US citizen. That successive Australian governments have allowed the US and the UK to go after Assange in absolute refusal of Assange's human rights is damning of our political class.

In a ruling published late Tuesday, Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York delivered a devastating blow to the US-led conspiracy against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. In his ruling, Judge Koeltl, a Bill Clinton nominee and former assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, dismissed “with prejudice” a civil lawsuit filed in April 2018 by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) alleging WikiLeaks was civilly liable for conspiring with the Russian government to steal DNC emails and data and leak them to the public. Jennifer Robinson, a leading lawyer for Assange, and other WikiLeaks attorneys welcomed the ruling as “an important win for free speech.” Article by Eric London, first published on 31 July 2019 at https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/31/assa-j31.html. Illustrations by candobetter eds

Judge dismisses lawsuit

The decision exposes the Democratic Party in a conspiracy of its own to attack free speech and cover up the crimes of US imperialism and the corrupt activities of the two parties of Wall Street. Judge Koeltl stated:

If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet. But that would impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern. The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election. This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.

The ruling exposes the illegality of the conspiracy by the US government, backed by the governments of Britain, Ecuador, Australia and Sweden and the entire corporate media and political establishment, to extradite Assange to the US, where he faces 175 years in federal prison on charges including espionage.

The plaintiff in the civil case—the Democratic Party—has also served as Assange’s chief prosecutor within the state apparatus for over a decade. During the Obama administration, Democratic Party Justice Department officials, as well as career Democratic holdovers under the Trump administration, prepared the criminal case against him.

The dismissal of the civil suit exposes massive unreported conflicts of interest and prosecutorial misconduct and criminal abuse of process by those involved. The criminal prosecution of Assange has nothing to do with facts and is instead aimed at punishing him for telling the truth about the war crimes committed by US imperialism and its allies.

The judge labeled WikiLeaks an “international news organization” and said Assange is a “publisher,” exposing the liars in the corporate press who declare that Assange is not subject to free speech protections. Judge Koeltl continued: “In New York Times Co. v. United States, the landmark ‘Pentagon Papers’ case, the Supreme Court upheld the press’s right to publish information of public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party.”

As a legal matter, by granting WikiLeaks’ motion to dismiss, the court ruled that the DNC had not put forward a “factually plausible” claim. At the motion to dismiss stage, a judge is required to accept all the facts alleged by the plaintiff as true. Here, the judge ruled that even if all the facts alleged by the DNC were true, no fact-finder could “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Going a step further, the judge called the DNC’s arguments “threadbare,” adding: “At no point does the DNC allege any facts” showing that Assange or WikiLeaks “participated in the theft of the DNC’s information.”

Judge Koeltl said the DNC’s argument that Assange and WikiLeaks “conspired with the Russian Federation to steal and disseminate the DNC’s materials” is “entirely divorced from the facts.” The judge further ruled that the court “is not required to accept conclusory allegations asserted as facts.”

The judge further dismantled the DNC’s argument that WikiLeaks is guilty-by-association with Russia, calling the alleged connection between Assange and the Russian government “irrelevant,” because “a person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.”

Judge Koeltl also rejected the DNC’s claim “that WikiLeaks can be held liable for the theft as an after-the-fact coconspirator of the stolen documents.” Calling this argument “unpersuasive,” the judge wrote that it would “eviscerate” constitutional protections: “Such a rule would render any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a coconspirator in the theft.”

In its April 2018 complaint, the DNC put forward a series of claims that have now been exposed as brazen lies, including that Assange, Trump and Russia “undermined and distorted the DNC’s ability to communicate the party’s values and visions to the American electorate.”

The complaint also alleged: “Russian intelligence services then disseminated the stolen, confidential materials through GRU Operative #1, as well as WikiLeaks and Assange, who were actively supported by the Trump Campaign and Trump Associates as they released and disclosed the information to the American public at a time and in a manner that served their common goals.”

At the time the DNC filed its complaint, the New York Times wrote that the document relies on “publicly-known facts” as well as “information that has been disclosed in news reports and subsequent court proceedings.” The lawsuit “comes amid a swirl of intensifying scrutiny of Mr. Trump, his associates and their interactions with Russia,” the Times wrote.

It is deeply ironic that Judge Koeltl cited the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, in his ruling.

The DNC’s baseless complaint cited the New York Times eight times as “proof” of Assange and WikiLeaks’ ties to Russia, including articles by Times reporters Andrew Kramer, Michael Gordon, Niraj Chokshi, Sharon LaFraniere, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Eric Lichtblau, Noah Weiland, Alicia Parlapiano and Ashley Parker, as well as a July 26, 2016 article by Charlie Savage titled “Assange, avowed foe of Clinton, timed email release for Democratic Convention.”

The first of these articles was published just weeks after the New York Times hired James Bennet as its editorial page editor in March 2016. James Bennet’s brother, Michael Bennet, is a presidential candidate, a senator from Colorado and former chair of the DNC’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In 2018, Bennet signed a letter to Vice President Mike Pence noting he was “extremely concerned” that Ecuador had not canceled asylum for Assange, who was then trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

“It is imperative,” the letter read, “that you raise US concerns with [Ecuadorian] President [Lenin] Moreno about Ecuador’s continued support for Mr. Assange at a time when WikiLeaks continues its efforts to undermine democratic processes globally.”

In April 2019, after the Trump administration announced charges against Assange, the New York Times editorial board, under James Bennet’s direction, wrote: “The administration has begun well by charging Mr. Assange with an indisputable crime.” Two weeks later, Michael Bennet announced his presidential run and has since enjoyed favorable coverage in the Times editorial page.

Additionally, the father of James and Michael Bennet, Douglas Bennet, headed the CIA-linked United States Agency for International Development in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

On Wednesday, the Times published a brief, six-paragraph article on page 25 under the headline, “DNC lawsuit against election is dismissed.” In its online edition, the Times prominently featured a link to its special page for the Mueller Report, which is based on the same DNC-instigated threadbare lies that Judge Koeltl kicked out of federal court

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) has commenced an inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press. The inquiry was referred by the Attorney-General, The Hon Christian Porter MP, on 4 July 2019, for the PJCIS to inquire into the Terms of Reference. (Details inside.) This is a reaction to public and press reaction over the raid by the Australian federal police of the home of News Corp Australia journalist Annika Smethurst, to find out how she had come by a leaked plan to allow government spying on Australians. A warrant from an ACT magistrate gave police authority to search the home, computer and mobile phone of the journalist. News Corp Australia called this a "dangerous act of intimidation targeted at public interest reporting." Smethurst had authored an article about heads of defence and home affairs ministries in Australia having talked about "draconian new powers to allow the Australian Signals Directorate to spy on Australian citizens for the first time. Under the mooted plan, spies would be allowed to secretly access emails, bank accounts and text messages with approval from the defence and home affairs ministers." See inside for how you can contribute - by 26 July 2019. Consider how Australian governments have failed to protect Julian Assange in the name of a perceived right to conceal war crimes.

The Committee has been requested to report back to both Houses of Parliament by 17 October 2019.

The Chair, Mr Andrew Hastie MP, said ‘the government has referred this inquiry based on concerns raised in relation to recent search warrants executed on members of the press, and the issue of balancing national security with the freedom of the press’.

‘This inquiry will allow the Committee to hear from the media, government agencies and other interested stakeholders as to the direct impact of these powers on civil society and their importance to both national security and the public interest. We will consider these issues closely and carefully.’

The Committee invites written submissions to this inquiry, to be received by Friday, 26 July 2019.

Further information on the inquiry can be obtained from the Committee’s website.

Media inquiries:

Chair, Mr Andrew Hastie MP (Canning, WA)
08 9534 8044 (Electorate office)
(02) 6277 4223 (Parliament House)

For background information:

Committee Secretariat, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
(02) 6277 2360
[email protected]

For more information about this Committee, you can visit its website. On the site, you can make a submission to an inquiry, read other submissions, and get details for upcoming public hearings. You can also track the Committee and receive email updates by clicking on the blue ‘Track Committee’ button in the bottom right hand corner of the page.

Terms of Reference

The Committee is to inquire and report back to both Houses of Parliament on the following matters:

a) The experiences of journalists and media organisations that have, or could become, subject to the powers of law enforcement or intelligence agencies performing their functions, and the impact of the exercise of those powers on journalists' work, including informing the public.
b) The reasons for which journalists and media organisations have, or could become, subject to those powers in the performance of the functions of law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
c) Whether any and if so, what changes could be made to procedures and thresholds for the exercise of those powers in relation to journalists and media organisations to better balance the need for press freedom with the need for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate serious offending and obtain intelligence on security threats.
d) Without limiting the other matters that the Committee may consider, two issues for specific inquiry are:

whether and in what circumstances there could be contested hearings in relation to warrants authorising investigative action in relation to journalists and media organisations.
the appropriateness of current thresholds for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access electronic data on devices used by journalists and media organisations.
The Committee is to report back to both Houses of Parliament by 17 October 2019.

Pontius Pilate, of course, was the judge who condemned Jesus Christ to death, according to the bible. The crime Jesus was punished for was that of leading a religion critical of the values of the Roman state. Modern authorities try to defend their right to have criminal secrets in order to justify pursecuting Assange, who has led a world-wide movement for transparent and just government. If UK or Swedish judges deliver Assange to authorities who then deliver him to the United States, they may claim that they are only doing their duty under the law, just like Judge Pontius Pilate. I am not religious, but I think this is a valuable parable for our time.

I first became aware of Julian Assange through Wikileak's publication of the "Collateral Murder" material. [Collateral murder comes from the expression 'collateral damage', a euphemism coined by the US war machine to describe civilian deaths and material damage in war.] I was filled with admiration and relief that someone was exposing the continuing illegal role of the US Army in Iraq and its vicious conduct. I could not understand why the United States had not been universally condemned for the lies it used to illegally invade Iraq and then why a range of US-NATO allies failed to condemn its continuing brutal occupation of that country. I next became aware of the US-NATO horror caused in Libya and then in Syria. As my awareness grew, so did the effrontery of the United States. Soon it was accusing Russia of aggression, as the US itself surrounded Russia with US bases. See the map.[1]

Criminal state

Now, in the ultimate criminal state absurdity, Britain, a major partner to US in weapons sales and war crimes in the Middle East, is aiding and abetting the United States to punish the one man who was able and courageous enough to expose the United States for its war crimes within war crimes. Obscenely, but revealingly, a small-time London magistrate, Judge Deborah Taylor, showed the clay that British "justice" is based on, as she 'diagnosed' [SIC] Assange a "narcissist" [an upstart] and thereby sentenced him to 58 weeks in high security prison, presumably for crimes of personality and class. She completely ignored what ordinary people can see and what she must have seen; that he was correctly in fear of his life from the criminal government of the United States and its vassal, the British government. She had to know that extradition was in the wings, but she pretended that it was not.

It is hard to find out anything about this woman, but, contrary to her supposed impartiality, she seems to me to be either the servant or the dupe of the British upper class. That ruling class considers that it has the right to engage in murder and mayhem all over the world by supplying weapons for cash, but woe-betide any commoner who might expose its crimes for public judgement. Should the US elites succeed in their plans to exact their cruel revenge on Julian Assange, I think that Judge Deborah Taylor may go down in history as the woman who helped send modern civilisation down its final corridor to total enslavement and war.

Julian Assange unlike Jesus won't rise again, so we must protect him

For Julian Assange, unlike Jesus - another 'upstart' - probably won't arise again. You may or may not believe in Jesus, but the crucifixion story is a valid parable nonetheless and it is all about justice and democracy: After Judas identified him, Jesus was convicted by a magistrate, Pontius Pilate, of the crime of trying to lead the jews against the Romans in a revolutionary religion, which preached love instead of war, slavery and pillage.[2] Later the Romans adopted Christianity and when the Roman empire fell, the Holy Roman Empire continued. In the 16th Century Henry VIII took over as head of religion in England and called it the Church of England. The Church of England still claims to believe that Jesus Christ died to save the rest of us from oppression. The queen is supposed to believe that. British magistrates are supposed to act within that paradigm, but we can see that they do not.

In Jesus' case, at the site of crucifixion, the attending crowd was asked who they would prefer to save: Jesus or another revolutionary, Barrabas. The crowd chose Barrabas.[2] We, however, do not have another revolutionary of Assange's extraordinary global profile, but neither is anyone asking us if we want to save Julian Assange.

It is up to us to save ourselves and Julian Assange and the right to shine a light on the crimes that the power elite carry out all the time.

We live in a world, sadly, where electronic technology has reached a point at which people with money can do almost anything. They can launch wars for profit, carry out torture, influence the courts and the media, and then they can secretly try and imprison anyone who attempts to expose what they have done. That's why they are persecuting Julian Assange. They are out to prove that they can silence any protest.

These rich power-elites are networked and they back each other up. Julian Assange, as part of the alternative media, exposed this network - and he did not take sides. Even the cowardly mainstream media that pretends he is not a journalist republished the information he provided. If Julian is extradited to the United States, judged guilty in a secret court (for it will be secret) publishing in the western world will suffer the same fate as publishing in Muslim countries. Remember Charlie Hebdo and "We are all Charlie."

We are all Julian Assange now. Jesus of Nazareth was a local phenomena that went viral. Julian is a global phenomena in a global world - but he may be our last because, after him, what individual will ever achieve such a political profile, if the power-elite get their wish for utter media control and total secrecy?

US-NATO Military Industrial Media Congressional Complex

Humans who live in modern techno civilisations are only apparently better than their ancestors; they are essentially the same, in different clothes, with different technologies. Without those materials and technologies, we are our ancestors. And so are our masters. They can be just as vicious as Attila, just as grasping as the Roman Emperors, and just as cowardly as modern generals who order drone executions without trial on people far away. America's 'Exceptionalism' seems to be no different from Hitler's belief in the 'master race' doctrine. The United States openly uses its Exceptionalist doctrine to justify the invasion, occupation and genocide involved in its multiple regime change projects, which seem to have two aims: to get control of fossil fuel resources and to make money out of weapons in continuous rolling wars. Weapons sales seem to be the most profitable industry in the world. That is what Julian Assange is up against.

Julian Assange's plight shows how little worth Australian citizenship has and how worthless our US subservient politicians

Of course, none of this persecution of one inspired giant of a man could have been achieved if the client vassal state to America, Australia, had not remained collusively silent. Successive Australian governments have pretended that they have provided Assange with 'appropriate' consular support. That is why I say that Assange's plight shows how little worth Australian citizens have in the eyes of the Australian Government. As Assange himself once said something like that it is right for Australians to look at what happens in Washington, because that is where the real government of Australia is. As an Australian, I am ashamed of my government and I cannot understand why my countrymen remain so cowed and confused about what this all means.

NOTES

[1]
The US has 800 to 1000 military bases world wide. Russia has only eight, and these are located close to its own borders. France has nine. The United Kingdom has the most next to the US.
These bases are themselves occupations by the United States of sovereign powers: Here is a list of military bases by country. Australia also has a US base. Citizens in Australia and most or all countries that the US occupies with armed forces have protested again and again, yet their governments have acquiesced to the US, not to the democratic demands of their citizens.

[2] According to biblical history, Pontius Pilate served as the prefect of Judaea from 26 to 36 A.D. He convicted Jesus of treason and declared that Jesus thought himself King of the Jews, and had Jesus crucified. In the Gospel according to Mark, Pilate’s main question to Jesus was whether he considered himself to be the King of the Jews, and thus a political threat (Mark 15:2). In the Gospel according to Luke, Temple authorities had decided that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, but brought him to Pilate to accuse him further of sedition against Rome. The Gospel of Luke says that Pilate handed Jesus over to the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas for judgment on the grounds that Jesus was a Galilean and thus under Antipas' jurisdiction. Jesus was publicly flogged and then executed by crucifixion as a traitor to Rome. All Gospels say that it had been a tradition of the Romans to release a Jewish prisoner at the time of the Passover. Pilate offered the crowd at the execution site the choice of releasing either Jesus or another revolutionary named Barabbas. The crowd stated that it wished to save Barabbas. Accordingly, Pilate condemned Jesus to crucifixion.

The most honest man in Britain today is Julian Assange, while the most dishonest are those who are engaged in his ongoing persecution.

(This article by John Wight was first published at https://www.rt.com/op-ed/461768-assange-extradition-justice-british/ on 13 June 2019.)

Wikileaks statement: Wikileaks has grave concerns about the state of health of our publisher, Julian Assange, who has been moved to the health ward of Belmarsh prison. Mr Assange's health had already significantly deteriorated after seven years inside the Ecuadorian embassy, under conditions that were incompatible with basic human rights. The United Nations twice found him to have been arbitrarily detained and called on the United Kingdom to honor its committments under international law and free him. The UK's refusal to abide by UN rulings, and its subsequent treatment of Mr. Assange since his arrest, presents serious questions about the UK's standing as a human rights-abiding nation.

In his last year in the embassy, as the US finalized its extraditions plans, Julian Assange was, at the bequest of US authorities, totally isolated and gagged - a situation designed to make his life as hard as possible.

During the seven weeks in Belmarsh his health has continued to deteriorate and he has dramatically lost weight. The decision of prison authorities to move him to the health ward speaks for itself.

We strongly condemn the refusal by the Swedish court to postpone a hearing on 3rd June on the basis of Mr Assange's health condition. Defense lawyer for Assange, Per Samuelson said that Julian Assange's health state last Friday was such "that it was not possible to conduct a normal conversation with him."

Tomorrow, May 30, there is a formal hearing in Westminster Court on the Extradition request by the Trump administration. The initial U.S. warrant has been expanded to include a life sentence or potential death penalty under the Espionage Act, announced las week in the superceding indictment which disclosed 17 additional charges, bringing the potential sentence to 175 years in prison. The indictments have beenwidely condemned by free press organizations as the most serious attack against publishing activities in modern times - the Trump administration in essence criminalizes the very act of journalism. The indictment utilises the archaic Espionage Act of 1917 to indict a publisher for the first time in history - in an unprecedented escalation of the Trump administration's war on the free press.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief:

"Julian's case is of major historic significance. It will be remembered as the worst attack on press freedom in our lifetime. The People need to voice their condemnation; it is their politicians, their courts, their police and their prisons that are being abused in order to leave this black stain on history. Please act now to avert this shame."

Source of this press release from WikiLeaks is https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1133847992656715776

In this video Jimmie Dore analyses an article by Elizabeth Goitein,[1] "The U.S. says Julian Assange ‘is no journalist.’ Here’s why that shouldn’t matter,"(May 25, 2019) which appeared in the Washington Post, showing how prosecution of Assange would go against the First Amendment and threaten, not just journalists, but anyone who speaks, reports, writes or publishes. Inside there is another video interview with US lawyer Alan Dershowitz by Afshin Rattansi, on the same issue.

Alan Dershowitz: Julian Assange’s indictment threatens all mainstream outlets! (E752)

"On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law professor and former legal adviser to Julian Assange) about the latest indictment against the WikiLeaks founder, the danger it poses to mainstream outlets such as CNN, the New York Times and Washington Post, the silence of most Democrats and Republicans on Assange’s persecution, Donald Trump’s state visit, and more. Next, we speak to Mauritius’ Permanent UN Representative Jagdish Koonjul after the UN General Assembly voted to urge the UK to leave the Chagos Islands. He discusses the UK’s history of occupation of the islands, what he calls ‘unfinished decolonization,’ and why the UK should end its administration of the Chagos Islands."

Notes

[1] Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein
Co-Director, Liberty & National Security Program

Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein co-directs the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. Ms. Goitein is the author of the Brennan Center’s report The New Era of Secret Law and co-author of the reports Overseas Surveillance in an Interconnected World, What Went Wrong with the FISA Court, and Reducing Overclassification Through Accountability. She is also the author of the chapter “Overclassification: Its Causes and Consequences” in the book An Enduring Tension: Balancing National Security and Our Access to Information, and co-author of the chapter “Lessons From the History of National Security Surveillance” in the 2017 Cambridge Handbook of Surveillance Law. Her writing has been featured in major newspapers including The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and LA Times, and she has appeared on national television and radio shows including the The Rachel Maddow Show, All In with Chris Hayes, the PBS NewsHour, and National Public Radio’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered. She has testified before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

Before coming to the Brennan Center, Ms. Goitein served as counsel to Senator Feingold, Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as a trial attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. Ms. Goitein graduated from the Yale Law School and clerked for the Honorable Michael Daly Hawkins on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

*Ms. Goitein is admitted to the Bar in the State of Massachusetts. Her practice in Washington, DC is limited to practice before U.S. courts as provided in DCCA Rule 49(c)(3).

In midst of an interesting and wide-ranging discussion on the Joe Rogan Experience, Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard said that if elected president she would drop all charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

“What would you do about Julian Assange? What would you do about Edward Snowden?” Rogan asked in the latter part of the episode.

“As far as dropping the charges?” Gabbard asked.

“If you’re president of the world right now, what do you do?”

“Yeah, dropping the charges,” Gabbard replied.

Rogan noted that Sweden’s preliminary investigation of rape allegations has just been re-opened, saying the US government can’t stop that, and Gabbard said as president she’d drop the US charges leveled against Assange by the Trump administration.

(Article by Caitlin Johnson, republished with thanks from https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/05/14/gabbard-says-shed-drop-all-charges-against-assange-and-snowden/.)

“Yeah,” Gabbard said when asked to clarify if she was also saying that she’d give Edward Snowden a presidential pardon, adding, “And I think we’ve got to address why he did things the way that he did them. And you hear the same thing from Chelsea Manning, how there is not an actual channel for whistleblowers like them to bring forward information that exposes egregious abuses of our constitutional rights and liberties. Period. There was not a channel for that to happen in a real way, and that’s why they ended up taking the path that they did, and suffering the consequences.”

This came at the end of a lengthy discussion about WikiLeaks and the dangerous legal precedent that the Trump administration is setting for press freedoms by prosecuting Assange, as well as the revelations about NSA surveillance and what can be done to roll back those unchecked surveillance powers.

“What happened with [Assange’s] arrest and all the stuff that just went down I think poses a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech,” Gabbard said. “We look at what happened under the previous administration, under Obama. You know, they were trying to find ways to go after Assange and WikiLeaks, but ultimately they chose not to seek to extradite him or charge him, because they recognized what a slippery slope that begins when you have a government in a position to levy criminal charges and consequences against someone who’s publishing information or saying things that the government doesn’t want you to say, and sharing information the government doesn’t want you to share. And so the fact that the Trump administration has chosen to ignore that fact, to ignore how important it is that we uphold our freedoms, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and go after him, it has a very chilling effect on both journalists and publishers. And you can look to those in traditional media and also those in new media, and also every one of us as Americans. It was a kind of a warning call, saying Look what happened to this guy. It could happen to you. It could happen to any one of us.”

Gabbard discussed Mike Pompeo’s arbitrary designation of WikiLeaks as a hostile non-state intelligence service, the fact that James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA surveillance as Director of National Intelligence yet suffered no consequences and remains a respected TV pundit, and the opaque and unaccountable nature of FISA warrants.

Some other noteworthy parts of Gabbard’s JRE appearance for people who don’t have time to watch the whole thing, with hyperlinks to the times in the video:

• Rogan gets Gabbard talking in depth about what Bashar al-Assad was actually like when she met him and what he said to her, which I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone bother to do before.
• The two discuss Eisenhower’s famous speech warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, and actually pause their dialogue to watch a good portion of it. Gabbard points out that in the original draft of the speech, Eisenhower had intended to call it the “congressional-military-industrial complex”.
• Good discussion on internet censorship and the dangers of allowing monopolistic Silicon Valley corporations to control public speech, then later discussing the possibility of breaking up these corporations or treating them as public utilities.
• Rogan asks Gabbard what she thinks happens to US presidents that causes them to fail to enact their campaign promises and capitulate to the will of the warmongering establishment, and what as president she’ll do to avoid the same fate. All presidential candidates should have to answer this question.
• Rogan asks Gabbard how she’ll stand against the billionaires for the American people without getting assassinated. All presidential candidates should have to answer this question as well.

I honestly think the entire American political system would be better off if the phoney debate stage format were completely abandoned and presidential candidates just talked one-on-one with Joe Rogan for two and a half hours instead. Cut through all the vapid posturing and the fake questions about nonsense nobody cares about and get them to go deep with a normal human being who smokes pot and curses and does sports commentary for cage fighting. Rogan asked Gabbard a bunch of questions that real people are interested in, in a format where she was encouraged to relax out of her standard politician’s posture and discuss significant ideas sincerely and spontaneously. It was a good discussion with an interesting political figure and I’m glad it’s already racked up hundreds of thousands of views.

________________________

Everyone has my @caityjohnstone/i-permanently-release-all-copyrights-to-all-my-writing-use-any-of-it-however-you-want-9ad929b92d42" rel="nofollow noopener">unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. My work is @caityjohnstone/just-a-note-of-gratitude-to-readers-and-patrons-7df920b5ced" rel="nofollow noopener">entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, @caityjohnstone/who-i-am-where-i-stand-and-what-im-trying-to-do-here-4a113e783578" rel="nofollow noopener">click here.

The following letter is to be sent to every independent candidate standing in the Federal Parliamentary election. A similar letter is to be sent to the candidates standing for the smaller parties. It is my hope that raising the profile of Julian Assange now may result in the election, on 18 May, of a Federal Parliament with at least a few members who are prepared to act to try to protect Julian Assange from those in the United States whose criminal conduct he helped expose to the world.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Firstly, thank you for standing as a candidate in the forthcoming election of 18 May.

Still from "Collateral Murder" video, leaked by Chelsea Manning (pictured opposite, below) to Julian Assange (opposite, top). The shorter version is embedded within this article.

I write to ask if you will use the election campaign to speak up for Julian Assange, an unjustly imprisoned Australian journalist, who faces extradition from Britain to the United States. Through the Wikileaks news service, established in 2006, Julian revealed to the world war-crimes that United States' rulers wanted to remain concealed. One of the most infamous of those incidents was the 12 July 2007 "Collateral murder" in Iraq by the US crew of an Apache helicopter.

On that day, at least 18 unarmed people, including two journalists employed by Reuters, were killed, and two children injured, by three consecutive attacks from a US Apache helicopter in Baghdad, Iraq. After the incident the Apache crew were heard laughing at the "12 to 15" bodies on the ground and at the sight of a Humvee running over one of the injured.

A subsequent inquiry by the US Army found that the actions of the Apache crew were justified, purportedly because all those killed were armed insurgents. The US Army refused to tell Reuters how two of their staff were killed on that day. Reuters attempted to obtain the video through Freedom of Information requests, but were unsuccessful.

This criminal coverup of murder was thwarted, however, when Private Chelsea Manning, who had viewed the 39 minute video of the incident, gave a copy to Wikileaks. The full version of that Video can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik . A shorter 18 minute version can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 and is also embedded below. For revealing this and other evidence of US war crimes to Wikileaks, Chelsea Manning was sentenced in 2013 to 35 years in prison.

Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq

As a consequence of "Collateral Murder" and other revelations, Wikileaks has drawn the ferocious enmity from those vested interests who wanted to keep that that knowledge from us. For example, on 10 August 2016, Hillary Clinton strategist Bob Beckel said, "The way to deal with this is pretty simple. We've got special ops forces. I mean a dead man can't leak stuff. ... The guy ought to be - and I 'm not for the death penalty, so, if I 'm not for the death penalty, there's only one way to deal with it - illegally shoot the son of a bitch." (see 1:14 minute video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rImgsRg-a-8.

All of Wikileaks' material has been republished in the mainstream news all over the world, again and again. No journalist other than Julian Assange has been pursued or punished for doing this. In 2010, an investigation by the Australian Federal Police found that Julian Assange has committed no crime. He did the world a courageous service and Australia should protect him. Unfortunately the ALP, the Libs, and the Greens, do not seem to have the courage to stand up to America or the UK on this matter. As mentioned above, the only party, of which I am so far aware, is standing in this election and is campaigning for Julian Assange, is the Socialist Equity Party.

Will you also stand up for Julian Assange?

It is my hope that, by raising the issue of Julian Assange to independents and small party candidates now, I might help make it possible to have a parliament elected on 18 May that will act to get Julian Assange back to Australia safely.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon
/JamesSinnamon

#appendix1" id="appendix1">Appendix: Candidates who support Julian Assange

Use the 'special relationship' to stop Assange extradition: Greens Senator Richard Di Natale

Australian Greens Leader and Foreign Affairs spokesperson Dr Richard Di Natale has called upon the Australian Government to swiftly intervene to ensure that Julian Assange is not extradited to the United States.

Please write to Julian. He is 23.5 hrs day (sometimes all day) in a prison cell, without even access to the prison library. He reads the letters he gets, although there is a delay in delivery, probably due to their going through some censorship or security process. The international public need to greatly ramp up their voice against what is happening here.

Below are the 'Sentencing Remarks' of Judge Deborah Taylor. She gives no consideration to the fact that Assange exposed war crimes, nor to the fact that he is pursued by a US Government responsible for those war crimes. At the end she says his sentence is subject to any further legal claims - and we know that means the US Government. In this she seems to me like a Mafioso lawyer delivering someone to the mob, or to the Gestapo. The Australian Government stands silently looking on, an abject colonial body.
WRITE TO:
Mr Julian Assange
DOB: 3/07/1971
HMP Belmarsh
Western Way
London SE28 0EB
UK

Sentencing Remarks of HHJ Deborah Taylor

R v Julian Assange (Bail Act offence)
Sentencing Remarks of HHJ Deborah Taylor
Southwark Crown Court
1 May 2019

Julian Assange, on 11 April 2019 you were convicted at Westminster Magistrates Court of an offence
under s.6(1) of the Bail Act 1976, and committed to this court for sentence.

On 24 February 2011 the Westminster Magistrates Court ordered your extradition to Sweden to face
allegations of sexual offending, including an allegation of rape. You were granted bail on conditions
throughout your appeals against this order, which culminated on 14 June 2012 in the rejection of
your application to re-open the Supreme Court dismissal of your appeal. On 19 June 2012 you
entered the Ecuadorean Embassy. On 28th June 2012 a notice requiring your surrender to Belgravia
Police Station on 29 June 2012 was served on you in the Ecuadorian embassy. You did not surrender
and a warrant for your arrest was issued by Westminster Magistrates Court on 29 June 2012.
On 16 August 2012, Ecuador granted you diplomatic asylum status. You remained in the Embassy
until 11 April 2019 when that status was revoked. Police entered at the invitation of the Government
of Ecuador, and arrested you. You were brought before Westminster Magistrates Court. Bail Act
proceedings were initiated and you were convicted of the s.6(1) offence. You have not appealed that
conviction. The background to this offence is now put forward as mitigation, rather than as any
reasonable excuse for your failure to surrender.

I have considered, and had regard to the Sentencing Council Guidelines for failing to surrender to
bail, the seriousness of the failure to surrender, the level of culpability and the harm caused. This
was in terms of culpability a deliberate attempt to evade or delay justice. In terms of harm, there
are several features of this case which put this in the A1 category, but in addition, are exceptional in
seriousness, and therefore in my judgment put this offence outside the Guideline range for even the
highest category offences. The Magistrates Court has committed the matter to this court having
considered that its powers of sentence were insufficient.

Firstly, by entering the Embassy, you deliberately put yourself out of reach, whilst remaining in the
UK. You remained there for nearly 7 years, exploiting your privileged position to flout the law and
advertise internationally your disdain for the law of this country. Your actions undoubtedly affected
the progress of the Swedish proceedings. Even though you did co-operate initially, it was not for you
to decide the nature or extent of your co-operation with the investigations. They could not be
effectively progressed, and were discontinued, not least because you remained in the Embassy.
Secondly, your continued residence in the Embassy has necessitated a concentration of resources,
and expenditure of £16 million of taxpayers’ money in ensuring that when you did leave, you were
brought to justice. It is essential to the rule of law that nobody is above or beyond the reach of the
law. Orders of the Court are to be obeyed

Thirdly, you have not surrendered willingly. Had the Government of Ecuador not permitted entry to
the Embassy, you would not have voluntarily come before the court.

I have taken into account all that has been said on your behalf in mitigation, including the
background history of this case which has been set out in some detail. These are matters which
have previously been argued before the Chief Magistrate in relation to the instigation of s.6
proceedings and dismissed in her Ruling of 13 February 2018 on your application to withdraw the
warrant, and again before the District Judge in the contested hearing on 11 April 2019 in which you
did not give evidence, and they were rejected as affording any defence. They include the history of
the Swedish investigation and proceedings, with the discontinuance of the proceedings in 2017, and
your expressed fear of being extradited to Sweden but then rendered to the USA. As far as the UN
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention opinion is concerned, this is not binding on this court, and, as
is apparent from the ruling of the Chief Magistrate, with some personal knowledge of the matters
relied upon, it was underpinned by misconceptions of fact and law.

It is no longer argued that these factors amount to good reason for your failure to surrender. In my
judgment they afford limited mitigation in relation to this offence. The argument that as a result
this is a category C case is wholly unrealistic given the circumstances.

Whilst you may have had fears as to what may happen to you, nonetheless you had a choice, and
the course of action you chose was to commit this offence in the manner and with the features I
have already outlined. In addition, I reject the suggestion that your voluntary residence in the
Embassy should reduce any sentence. You were not living under prison conditions, and you could
have left at any time to face due process with the rights and protections which the legal system in
this country provides.

Similarly I reject also the suggestion that forfeiture of money by you or others who provided security
for your attendance when you failed to attend court should reduce the sentence of the court. The
money was security attached to an obligation to ensure your attendance, not a down payment to
offset or reduce any sentence you may receive for not complying.

I have taken into account the medical evidence of Dr Korzinski and Dr Ladbrooke as to the mental
and physical effects of being in the Embassy for a prolonged period.

It is difficult to envisage a more serious example of this offence. The maximum sentence for this
offence is 12 months. You do not have the benefit of a plea of guilty. You have made a written
apology today, the first recognition that you regret you actions.

In my judgment, the seriousness of your offence, having taken into account the mitigation merits a
sentence near the maximum.

The sentence is imprisonment for 50 weeks.

Any time spent on remand in respect of this offence from the time of your arrest on 11 April 2019
will count against your sentence.

In respect of this offence you would fall to be released after serving half of the sentence, subject to
being returned to custody if you commit any further offences during the remainder of your licence
period. That of course is subject to the conditions and outcome of any other proceedings against
you.

HHJ Deborah Taylor

WRITE TO:
Mr Julian Assange
DOB: 3/07/1971
HMP Belmarsh
Western Way
London SE28 0EB
UK
See: writejulian.com

This discussion on Crosstalk asks whether in the prosecution or persecution of Julian Assange, the western world is seeing the death of journalism. Michael Patchett-Joyce, a barrister specialising in international and European law, brings some new views to the program. John Wight counters with some persuasive political analysis, as does ex-British parliamentarian, George Galloway. The issue of the courts and the 'public good' comes up. John Wight points out that this is an issue of class; the public good is really about the good of the establishment. Galloway says that, if Julian is extradited to the United States, there will be no juries and the US will not feel itself bound to any promises it may have made to Britain in this matter. Patchett-Joyce suggests that the case has a long way to go before a decision can be made about extradition. At no time does anyone mention Julian's cat, but we think this might be a picture of it.

Other recent articles on CanDoBetter about Julian Assange:
Julian Assange is Guilty Only of Revealing the Evil Soul of the US Empire (17/4/19), Video: Crosstalk- "Free speech threatened" Political, legal concepts & ramifications of Assange case (17/4/19), Explainer: what charges does Julian Assange face, and what’s likely to happen next? Article by Holly Cullen (13/4/19), Canadian Peace Alliance Statement on the Arrest of Julian Assange (12/4/19), Australian Government silent as Julian Assange manhandled out of Ecuadorian Embassy by London Police (11/4/19), Video: People power delays Ecuador's asylum betrayal of Julian Assange (9/4/19), An Open Letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison: Please use the powers vested in you to end Julian Assange's cruel ordeal (7/4/19), Shame on Australia! French Assange protest outside Australian embassy, Paris (6/4/19), Censorship: Are we all still Charlie Hebdo? Christchurch and Julian Assange (6/4/19), You can help make the Australian Government act to free Julian Assange (5/4/19).

After six and a half years illegal detention, the courageous and visionary Australian journalist Julian Assange, founder of the Wikileaks news service, has had his asylum inside the London Ecuadorian Embassy revoked and has been arrested by the British police to face trial for skipping bail back in 2012, a charge which he could only be jailed for a few years at most. However, there remains a serious risk that the United States could seek to have Julian Assange extradited to face, in its rigged judicial system, charges which have suspiciously remained secret until now: helping whistleblower Chelsea Manning crack a password to leak classified US documents.

See SEP (Australia) rallies demand freedom for Julian Assange (13/4/19) | WSWS for report of protest of Friday 12 April. -17/4/19: Protest Friday 4pm Victorian State Library in Melbourne and at 1pm in Martin Place, Sydney for Julian Assange: Bring yourself, friends, placards and any literature you may have to inform members of the public of why they need to act to help prevent the deportation to the United States, of Julian Assange, who is not even a United States citizen and has never been there!

On 5 February 2016 the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that Julian Assange had effectively been held in arbitrary detention inside the London Ecuadorian Embassy since October 2012 when he had first been granted political asylum there. This finding was reaffirmed in November 2016.

From October 2012 until May 2016, Julian Assange had been effectively in detention because the British government intended to allow Sweden to extradite him for ‘questioning’ - not to charge him - over rape allegations dating back to 2010. Had the Swedish government given an undertaking not to allow the US to extradite him, Julian Assange would have readily agreed to travel to Sweden, but the Swedish government refused to give such a guarantee.

The Swedish government also refused requests by Julian Assange to be interviewed inside the embassy. Only in May 2017, after the findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention were published, did a Swedish prosecutor finally make the effort to interview Assange inside the embassy. As a consequence, the prosecutor was forced to admit that Assange was not guilty of rape. Clearly the rape allegations were, just as Julian Assange had feared from the outset, a cynical ploy by ‘neutral’ Sweden to grab him, them hand him across to the U.S.

After Assange had been cleared of the Swedish rape allegations, British Prime Minister Cameron decided to issue the warrant to arrest him for the trivial charge of skipping bail back in 2012, after he had clearly endured far more incarceration than such a trivial offence could warrant. As the Swedish government did before him, Cameron refused to give an undertaking not to allow the U.S. to extradite him.

This arbitrary detention, now for six and a half years, is clearly illegal under international law and a denial of basic human rights to a man whom the Australian Federal Police had found in 2010 had committed no crime.

This is also a test-case of the Australian Government's respect and care for its citizens. It should have acted immediately to end Australian citizen Assange's illegal incarceration. It should have long ago demanded of the British and Swedish governments to guarantee not to allow Julian Assange to be extradited by the US to face the same fate of other courageous whistleblowers, including US Army Private Chelsea Manning and John Kiriakou, formerly of the CIA.

Had such a guarantee not have been given, the Australian Government should have dispatched to London a contingent of Australian Federal Police to escort Julian Assange back to Australia.

Even now, it is not too late to act. As Assange has already served far more detention than is warranted by the charge of skipping bail, he should be released no sooner than when he is sentenced the court. After that the Federal Police should escort him to Heathrow Airport thence back to Australia.

How you can help

Attend the protest today (Friday 12 April) at 4:00pm at the State Library to demand the Australian government act;
Talk to friends and family about Julian Assange;
Ask your federal member, whether Government or Opposition, why he/she has failed to act in all this time to uphold international law in regard to Julian Assange;
Ask each candidate seeking your vote at the federal elections on 18 May, what he/she intends to do for Julian Assange if elected. Give your highest preference to those who give the best responses.

Web resources

/2019_FederalElectionPolicies#julianAssange
/JulianAssange
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange_
https://twitter.com/wikileaks
12/04/19

The President of Ecuador, on flimsy pretext, has thrown Julian Assange to the wolves. Today Ruptly footage shows Assange being manhandled by several police from the embassy into a police vehicle. Julian had long hair and a long beard and was shouting, "The UK must resist," and something about "the Trump administration." From somewhere else, the Ecuadorian President delivered a prepared speech to cameras from his wheelchair, stating, among other things, that the UK Government has agreed in writing that Julian would not be sent anywhere he might be tortured or face the death penalty. Wikileaks has said, however, that Assange has been arrested for 'extradition to the United States for publishing'.

Ironically, U.K. Foreign Minister, Jeremy Hunt, has said on Twitter, “Julian Assange is no hero and no one is above the law. He has hidden from the truth for years.” In fact, it is power elites, like Jeremy Hunt, who have hidden from the truth and who have put themselves above the law.

Julian Assange and Wikileaks have drawn the curtain to reveal the business as usual world of international criminal elites. Depraved men and women, like Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump, Obama, and Hillary and Bill Clinton, to name a few in an almost endless line of powerful and very wealthy American administrators. These are people who benefit from and encourage war, who tell lies to start wars, and who protect torturers. They hold secret courts and execute their fellow citizens. They assassinate foreign rulers they don't find useful any more, and they overthrow elected governments. And they expect to control the media - and the narrative.

The US is currently attempting to overthrow the Venezuelan Government. It has bought and paid for the Columbian Government. It has been trying for many decades to overthrow Cuba. It seems to have been able to do a deal with Lenin Moreno, the current Ecuadorian President, who succeeded Rafael Correa, the previous president of Ecuador who courageously gave Julian Assange asylum. Moreno invited the police to arrest Julian Assange. This was the quintessential uncivilised act.

Jeremy Corbyn, the UK Opposition leader, has so far failed to take the opportunity to distinguish himself from Jeremy Hunt, reportedly a close associate, by standing up for decent treatment for Assange.

The corporatisation of mainstream media has meant that national and commercial media outlets have used all the stories that Assange broke, without any threats to themselves of arrest, whilst utterly failing to defend their source. What a bunch of cowards promote the narratives that cover the depraved vested interests of criminal governments of the world. If so-called professional journalists had ever stood up for him, the world would be so much more advanced. Instead, Julian's arrest threatens to take us further down into the black pit of ignorance and censorship.

We at https://candobetter.net support Assange and thank him for his heroic exposure of the criminal forces which have taken over most governments. His determination not to be taken by the 'authorities' was a reflection of his knowledge of the truly awful corruption in the merciless US and UK judicial systems

A comment containing excerpts from this page has been posted beneath #comment-76762">Assange Arrest Imminent: Ecuadorian Embassy To Expel Him In “Hours To Days” (5/4/19) by Tyler Durden | The Duran (21/4/19).

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine the reasons behind Ecuador's Foreign Minister stating that they have no plans of revoking Julian Assange's asylum status.

After news broke that Ecuador was planing on expelling Assange from their London Embassy, people gathered in the streets of London, and online voices blasted Ecuador's decision to deliver Assange to UK authorities, with eventual extradition to the United States.

The Ecuadorian government was compelled to quickly release a statement refuting the news of Assange's expulsion.

Comment by James Sinnamon: In this otherwise insightful and informative discussion of 8:53 minutes, I think Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris are far too kind to the UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn has had six and a half years to act to force the UK government end its illegal detention of Julian Assange. Corbyn, who purportedly supports Julian Assange, could have easily led many thousands of Labour Party supporters to protest at the Ecuadorian Embassy in support of Julian Assange. Such a crowd could easily have escorted Assange to Heathrow Airport and onto a flight back to Australia. Certainly, had he spoken more loudly in support of Julian Assange in all of these years, it would have been politically impossible for Theresa May to have persisted with her government's criminal and secretive collusion with the United States against Julian Assange.

Dear Prime Minister Scott Morrison, I write to ask you to act to bring to an end circumstances faced by Julian Assange which certainly have already harmed his health and may well end his life if those circumstances are not rectified soon.

An investigation by the Australian Federal Police into Julian Assange ordered by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2010, found that he had committed no crime.

In spite of that, he was threatened with extradition to the United States to face, in its rigged court system - as attested to by former CIA officer John Kiriakou, amongst others - charges that the United States is not even prepared to reveal to the public. Julian Assange, who is not even a United States' citizen, could face many years of imprisonment - or worse - for merely having made known, through Wikileaks, information that the public should know about world events of recent years.

To prevent this, he sought asylum inside the London Ecuadorian Embassy in October 2012. Asylum was granted to him by former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa as required by International Law.

Unfortunately, Assange's asylum inside the Ecuadorian embassy has been turned by the British government into an illegal detention. This has been found twice - on 5 February 2016 and on 30 November 2016 by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. This illegal detention has now lasted six and a half years and has had terrible consequences for Julian Assange's mental and physical health. In all this time, he has seen no sunlight, had little exercise and has been refused medical attention - clearly a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of international law.

President Lenin Moreno, who succeeded President Rafael Correa in 2017, has made Julian Assange's already dire living situation worse - putting him under constant surveillance, denying him access to the Internet or even reading material and restricting visitors.

On top of this, there are rumours that the Ecuadorian government may soon expel Julian Assange from the Embassy. Should he be expelled he faces what he has endured so much up until now to avoid - extradition to the United States.

Surely, neither the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, nor his continued confinement under the degrading conditions he has been made to endure for so long, are alternatives that should be acceptable to an Australian government showing a basic duty of care to each and every one of its citizens.

I therefore urgently request that you act now to end the illegal detention of Julian Assange. You could despatch today a contingent of Federal Police to fly to London, go to the Ecuadorian embassy and escort Julian Assange back to Heathrow Airport and thence back to Tullamarine Airport. I doubt if any British government authority would dare obstruct a contingent of Federal Police clearly acting to uphold the law and to end such a cruel denial of basic human rights.

Should your efforts to free Julian Assange somehow fail, you could try to ensure that he receives fair judicial process in the United States. He should be given an attorney of his choice funded by the Australian government and the United States be asked to conduct the trial in public. Certainly any charges arising from what is already been revealed to the public through Wikileaks should be tried in public.

Only then, if found guilty by a fair-minded and impartial jury, could any of what Julian Assange has endured since 2010 be seen to have been deserved. However, I believe that he would almost certainly be found not guilty if such a trial were to occur and he would then be able to walk free.

So, I appeal to you, even at this late stage, to use the powers vested in you to end Julian Assange's ordeal and to ensure that justice and the rule of law ultimately prevail in this instance.

Yours faithfully,

James Sinnamon

Video: French demonstrate outside the Australian embassy in Paris, calling for the cowardly unprincipled Australian Government to help Julian Assange. "Where are the 'We are all Charlie' freedom of the press demonstrators?" they cry.

Translation of video

Whilst during the day demonstrators stood outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to support the whistleblower, another demonstration started an hour ago in Paris outside the Australian Embassy. Listen to what people are saying:

[MALE INTERVIEWEE] "Well, its quite a delicate situation. It's been seven years. It's inexcusable. It's incomprehensible. Knowing the United States claims to be a country of western liberties, it is very odd that he [Julian Assange] is prevented in this way from returning to his country.

We have to keep up this kind of demonstration, thinking of Julian Assange and all the journalists , freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom to exchange information, the right to transparency. So, regular demonstrations to remind us of what Julian Assange is going through."

[FEMALE INTERVIEWEE] "The dangers are immense. The danger of being expelled [from the Ecuadorian embassy], from one day to the next, one hour to the next. Therefore, it is very very important for us to join in protest now.

Candobetter Ed: Indeed, shame on our government in Australia. Shame on Britain, where if nothing else, Jeremy Corbyn could lead a rescue party, but he's just another sell-out. As for America, run by a corrupt elite that rejoices in war, it should never be allowed to get its hands on Assange. Note that this video was published by RT France.

Translation to English of some comments in French below the video:

(A troll's comments were left out.)

Véronique G, 10 hours ago: "Shame on Australia for abandonning him. Shame on all the other countries which do nothing as well, and shame, above all, on the United States. Best wishes to this Australian journalist. I hope with all my heart that he will soon be FREE."
Honte à l Australie qui l a laissé tomber....Honte à tous les autres pays qui ne font rien non plus....et honte surtout aux States ....bon courage à ce journaliste australien , j espère de tout coeur que bientôt il sera LIBRE.

Marc Dodane, 11 hours ago: "This man should be freed and protected."
Cet homme devrait être libre et protégé.

mooban1000, 10 hours ago: "We must do everything to help against all the political lobbies ... an extraordinary person ..."
Il faut tout faire pour l’aider contre tous les lobbies politiques... une extraordinaire personne...

Jean Vasquez, 10 hours ago: "Where have all the "Charlies" gone? The defenders of freedom of expression."
Ou sont passés les " Charlie" ?
Les defenseurs de la liberté d expression.

Jean Vasquez, 10 hours ago: "The United States a country of liberty? WTF!!!
Les etats unis un pays de liberte ? Wtf !!!

h, 1 hour ago: "If these countries were countries of freedom, Assange would already be able to walk around, but these countries are dominated by private interests."
Ci ces pays serait des pays de liberté Assange devrais déjà pouvoir y circuler or ces pays sont soumis à des intérêts privé.

Artaax 33, 7 hours ago: "Where are the so-called Charlies?"
Ils sont où les soit disant charlie ?

minima moralia, 10 hours ago: "What can be done for him? We dare hope that PotUS will free him, the one who revealed Hilary's Pizza Gate, no?"
Que faire pour lui? On ose espérer que le PotUS va le faire libérer, lui qui a révélé le Pizza Gate de Hillary Clinton, non?

Jérémy de Beach: "He's a political prisoner."
c'est un prisonnier politique.

Not so long ago the middle classes were marching enthusiastically all over the western world to defend freedom of the press, after the massacre of journalists at Charlie Hebdo. "We are all Charlie!" they cried. Now there is hardly a peep about Julian Assange's cruel and unusual punishment for telling the world of war-crimes. Certainly no mass marches in the street. What's the difference? The mainstream press is singing a different song. It suited them to have people marching in the streets about Charlie Hebdo. Now, for some reason, it doesn't.

“Imagine that in 1946 the general-secretary of the United Nations had submitted a resolution to the General Assembly stating that Nazi crimes were so horrendous and despicable that the countries of the world needed to impose a blanket censorship on any public reference to or discussion of Hitler or his henchmen. Only the names of victims were to be mentioned or discussed. And the U.N. member countries, then, unanimously passed this resolution. If such a resolution had been proposed, passed, and fully enforced, what would we know today about the Nazi regime, the German history of that period, or the origins, premises, logic, and implied conclusions of national-socialist ideology and policies, both domestic and foreign? Without open and public discussion and debate through mention of Hitler’s name and unrestricted access to and use of his papers, speeches, and all other related documents, from whom would the world know why and what the Nazi system had done?” (Extract from article by Professor Richard M. Ebeling).

Justice and crime reporting must be open

Professor Ebeling's points are very well made in the full article. One thing Ebeling does not mention is that the police and justice system are supposed to serve us and we are supposed to keep track of them. Perhaps he does not mention this because it would take him into the personally dangerous realms of questioning his own state. However, the questions remain: If access to documents involving evidence, suspects' identities and trials, is removed from public examination, how can we be sure that justice is being served? How do we know that our courts serve our interests, rather than the interests of criminals and the military? An explosive case in point: If we do not have the material to examine, how can we assess what the New Zealand justice system is doing about the massacre in Christchurch? The arrested terrorist's face was pixelated in video of his being brought to be charged in court. The video record he apparently made of his mass murder, does not match up with what he is reported to have done. It seems to show him going round to two mosques, apparently for a second time, and shooting a mostly immobile piles of bodies. Ambulances did not arrive for over half an hour. It does not make sense. Perhaps there is an explanation, but how can doubts be satisfied if there is to be no discussion and no access to documents?

Many would call such doubts extreme: who could question Western governments?

Egregious abuse of censorship has led to international hounding of an extraordinary individual

Another thing that Professor Ebeling does not mention, is the fact that censorship has clearly been used to protect western evil in recent times.

I refer to the 'classification' of war footage taken in Iraq, leaked by Chelsea Manning to Wikileaks, which published it as Collateral Murder. This war footage was a 2007 recording made by US soldiers in Iraq (a country illegally invaded on an invented pretext and repeatedly pulverised). It records the shooting of unarmed civilians, including ambulance attendants and children, with the authority of the United States military, on the mistaken pretext that one of them may be carrying a machine gun. The video is taken from a powerful helicopter, which shoots hails of bullets into the civilians, a grotesque act of brutality and overkill. They shoot the ambulance attendants when those people are attempting to remove the wounded from the scene. They even shoot an obviously severely wounded man who is dragging himself on his belly towards a door. First they hope he will go for a gun to justify this shooting, but he doesn't, so they shoot him anyway. Twelve Iraqis die, including, among them, two Reuters journalists. This footage was censored by the US Government, but Wikileaks made it public. It is for this reason that the US wants to capture, imprison, and possibly execute past Wikileaks editor, Julian Assange, an Australian who has committed no crime - quite the opposite. The crime is all on the United States side. It is part of an unjustifiable series of brutal events associated with their illegal invasion of Iraq.

If you watch Wikileaks' Collateral Murder, you can assess that crime, and it has been discussed and reported all over the world. You can also assess Julian Assange's subsquent hounding by the United States government. His persecution and false painting as a criminal shows the price of revealing what elites consider their prerogative: mass murder and management of the mass media. Ironically, again, Collateral Murder has been republished many many times, by media outlets which have not been persecuted and which, like cowardly collaborators, have failed to stand up for Julian Assange. Fortunately it has not been recensored. The video embedded in this article is commented on by Julian Assange and Ivan Eland (US Defense analyst and ex-Cato institute director), and compered by a mainstream Al-Jazeera corporate news interviewer. The Al-Jazeera presentation and interview took place in 2010. It is worth looking at as well to see Julian Assange before his demonisation, to remember why saving him from the United States is so important.

And remembering why it is so important to stop censorship - that it is our responsibility to know what is going on, not to accept what we are told is going on as if we were children. Indeed, terrorism by private citizens does not begin to compare on the scale of terrorism by US-NATO.