Friday 22nd of January 2021

apparently their errand friends killed jesus 2000 years ago for the same reasons...


The US has been planning to have Julian Assange handed over for a longtime, that much is obvious. Mike Pence, the Vice President, was visiting Ecuador last year, notionally to discuss the Venezuela situation, and trade. But it was fairly obvious at the time, and even more so now, that they were discussing the details of Assange being handed over to UK authorities, and eventually extradited to the US.

“Trade”, indeed.

In terms of quid pro quo, the situation is clear-cut – In February, Ecuador got a $4.2 BILLION loan approved by the International Monetary Fund (amongst other pay-outs). Reuters reported on February 19th of this year:

Ecuador has reached a $4.2 billion staff-level financing deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), President Lenin Moreno said on Wednesday, as the Andean country grapples with a large fiscal deficit and heavy external debt.

The country will also receive $6 billion in loans from multilateral institutions including the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the CAF Andean development bank…


So, less than 2 months ago, it was announced Ecuador was going to receive over 10 billion dollars of loans. Where all that money will eventually end up is anyone’s guess, it certainly isn’t being spent on infrastructure or state enterprise:

Moreno has begun to implement an austerity plan that includes layoffs of workers at state-owned companies and cuts to gasoline subsidies, also plans to find a private operator for state-run telecoms company CNT and other state-owned firms. 


President Moreno has already been the subject of numerous corruption accusations. So these “loans”, nominally for “[creating] work opportunities for those who have not yet found something stable”, could more realistically be described as “a pay-off”.

More than just money, Lenin Moreno has been gifted something all insecure third-world leaders crave: Western approval.

The Economist ran a story on April 12th, the day after Assange was arrested, praising Lenin Moreno’s economic policies, and blaming the previous administration for the “mess” that Moreno has to clear ups. (Of course, the idea that Moreno is handling the economy brilliantly, but somehow also needs over $10 billion dollars in loans is never addressed. A tiny logical contradiction compared with the nonsense the MSM dish-up on a daily basis).

The basic structure of the give-and-take of this situation is fairly obvious.

Less on the nose, but still definitely present, is the slow-burn media-based campaign of defamation and smears directed at Assange. A campaign designed to weaken public support for him and lessen the potential outcry if/when the UK handed him to US authorities, who famously use “enhanced interrogation” on suspects.

Last October, just three months after Pence’s Ecuador visit, an Ecuadorian government memo was “leaked” claiming that Assange had bad personal hygiene habits, was hacking people’s electrical devices, and neglecting his cat. These charges, cynically designed to make Assange a figure of ridicule, got massive play in the media. The Guardian, ever at the vanguard of sticking the boot in on Assange, ran a gleeful opinion piece mocking him. As did many other publications.

Assange, who had his internet access shut-off in March of last year, was unable to defend himself.

To this day we have no way of knowing if there is any veracity to this “leaked” memo, but real or not, it served both to belittle Assange in the public mind, and provide Ecuador with an excuse to get rid of him (they set up “rules”, claim Assange wasn’t following them and THAT’s why they kicked him out – not the 10 billion dollars they got from international financial institutions).

The media are, of course, complicit in this lie. (Gus bold)

Various outlets, from the Guardian, to CNN to the Australian have written “explainer” articles with headlines such as: ‘Rude, ungrateful and meddling’: why Ecuador turned on Assange.

Because – you know – ‘rude and ‘ungrateful’ people don’t deserve to have their human rights respected. There’s probably a clause in the UN charter to that effect.

Every step of this ignoble process, so far, has been based on lies. Let’s list them.

Lie #1: Assange has been and is attacked as a “Russian agent” and “Putin’s stooge”. A “breaking news” story for the Guardian, written by an erstwhile plagiarist and a convicted forger, claimed Assange had worked with Paul Manafort to swing the US election for Trump.

No evidence for these claims has been supplied. It remains to date nothing more than a baseless allegation, and WikiLeaks is in the process of suing the Guardian over it. This lie paints Assange as an “enemy combatant”, and will be used to justify whatever happens to him.

Lie #2: Let’s all recall that, for months, we were told the US didn’t want Assange, that “the only barrier to him leaving the embassy was pride”. WikiLeaks claims that US had sealed indictments waiting for Assange were dismissed as “conspiracy theories”.

Not true. Not any of it. The secret indictments were leaked, proving WikiLeaks correct. (Ecuador is – shocking –  claiming that they weren’t aware there any extradition orders for Mr Assange before they released him to the UK police. This risible assertion has gone totally unchallenged in the mainstream media.)

Lie #3: Just one week ago, the Ecuadorian government claimed they had NO plans to kick Assange out, and that WikiLeaks lied when they claimed as much.

They released Assange to UK police just six days later.

Equally obnoxious and dishonest is the ‘corporate concern trolling’ that allows faux-liberals to take up the craven position of “qualified support”, such as:

“You can think Assange is a liar, fascist and misogynist, but still think he shouldn’t be extradited”


This is the stance adopted by folks like Owen Jones in the Guardian, a position which claims to support one course of action, but is actually covertly arguing for the opposite. Damning Assange with the pretence of faint praise.

And ‘identity politics’ is also playing its part here – displaying its usefulness in clogging up public debate with shallow finger-pointing and Crucible-esque accusations of moral impurity. (Jones labels anyone who doesn’t believe the accusations against Assange “a misogynist”).

Suzanne Moore, the epitome of the liberal hypocrite, wrote a column for the New Statesmen talking quite a lot about totally unproven accusations of “molestation”, but breezing over the very-much-proven crimes against humanity.

Meanwhile seventy UK MPs, including “people’s champion” Jess Philips, and John Woodcock (who quit Labour over accusations of sexually inappropriate behaviour), signed a letter to Sajid Javid demanding Assange be handed over to Sweden to face “justice”. A position marred only by the fact that Sweden haven’t actually asked for him yet. (This was aimed at Corbyn and Diane Abbott, whose support for Assange will be turned against them, and used to label Labour as being “soft on sexual predators” or “not supporting women” etc).

But this is all distraction and obfuscation – keeping the totally discredited accusations in the headlines, whilst avoiding the actual truth, which is:

Julian Assange was arrested for publishing evidence of US war crimes, after the US government bribed the Ecuadorian government to break international law.


That is what happened. And anyone who uses lies and distraction to deny this truth is on the wrong side of history.


Read more:

cat crap...

The “demented” stories about Julian Assange’s spying cat and embassy antics are being spun by the top Ecuadorian officials to divert attention from his “disgraceful expulsion” from asylum, WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson said.

An exclusive story, revealing spurr-ious details about Assange’s stay at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London was spun by Daily Mail on Friday. The piece has since raised quite a few eyebrows with its bold but unfounded claims, including some quite outlandish statements by the Ecuadorian ambassador.

READ MORE: There's no evidence to justify Assange's eviction, Snowden's lawyer says

Among other things, Ecuador’s UK Ambassador Jaime Marchan brought up the pawsibility Assange’s famous Embassy Cat might have been up to something dodgy, claiming the whole diplomatic mission was wary of the critter.

“It could go in every room – we were suspicious it may carry a device ... to spy on us,” the diplomat said.


Read more:

the real news from the real news network...

MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Marc Steiner. Great to have you with us once again.

As we all know by now, Julian Assange was kicked out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and then arrested, and has been indicted by the U.S. government for allegedly helping Chelsea Manning to crack a password code on a Defense Department computer to unearth restricted classified documents. That took place in 2010.

As Assange was being hauled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy he was holding in his hand a book, a copy of Gore Vidal’s History of the National Security State. That’s a collection of interviews he did with Paul Jay, CEO and editor-in-chief here at The Real News Network. And there really is a critical juncture between the book and Assange’s arrest that involves the role of the national security state in our country. So, Paul Jay, welcome to your own network.

PAUL JAY: Well, it’s not my network. I work for this network.

MARC STEINER: I couldn’t resist. Anyhow.

Obviously the first question here is we were all looking at this and saying, “We know that book. Why is he holding that book? What is he trying to tell the world and us holding this book by Gore Vidal on the national security state?” What were your first thoughts, and what do you think that meant, if anything?

PAUL JAY: Well, I think it was deliberate, obviously. He’s known that he was going to be arrested for quite some time, and certainly in the last couple of days it was just a question of when. So I mean, I’ve never met or talked to Julian. But I’m assuming he did it with some intent. And I think it’s to send the message that this is the national security state that has come for him, and that the national security state is a dangerous thing for people and they should be aware of it.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind here is just what he’s been arrested for; this alleged collusion, if you want to use the word, with Chelsea Manning to leak the various reams of information that Chelsea Manning leaked. They’re claiming he crossed the line in helping to create a password–crack a password–which a journalist is only supposed to receive the information, not in any way collaborate. I have no idea whether Julian did or didn’t do what they’re alleging. But I think a far more important thing is being lost in, so far, most of the media coverage I’ve seen of this arrest, which is they exposed war crimes; they being Julian, Chelsea Manning. They exposed American war crimes in Iraq. And of course there’s this famous footage of a helicopter essentially murdering people as they walk across a square in–I guess it’s Baghdad. But we know in that story that not only did they kill the people in the original video, but they go ahead and strafe a van where there were children in it. And that was just a tip of the iceberg of the kind of war crimes being committed by the United States in Iraq.

And most importantly, what should be discussed again at this moment is that the war itself was a war crime. It was an illegal war. It was not sanctioned by the United Nations. The United States did not face a threat of imminent attack by Iraq, which is the only justification for war. These types of wars of aggression–and it’s clear it was a war of aggression. There was no weapons of mass destruction, and the UN inspectors were all saying so. The Nuremberg trials, they put the Nazis on trial. And it was said at the time and it’s been said since it’s the highest form of war crime, an aggressive war.

So what did WikiLeaks, what did Julian Assange, what did Chelsea Manning do? They exposed war crimes. So whether it may have technically broken an American law or not, if there’s ever going to be democracy, there better be whistleblowers. And the fact that the Obama administration and now the Trump administration, the deep state is going after whistleblowers–and particularly the most well known other than Snowden, Assange–is to send a message. And it comes at a very critical time when I think the Trump administration is planning for some kind of attack on Iran; certainly massive economic destabilization. And who knows what other nefarious things they are planning.

So it’s not just an attack on press freedom, which it is. It’s not just a way to intimidate journalists and news organizations from accepting leaked material, which it is. But it’s saying even if you’re exposing war crimes, we’re coming after you. And the corporate media is ignoring the whole substance of what was done by Chelsea and Julian.

MARC STEINER: So as we talk about the corporate media–let’s for a moment play this clip from MSNBC that kind of, I think, will describe the tenor of how the corporate media is going to follow this particular case, and some of the things they may be saying. Let’s take a look at it and kind of figure out what they’re saying here and how this fits into the whole thing.

SPEAKER: Yes. WikiLeaks began as a transparency organization. And at the time WikiLeaks was viewed as sort of an independent organization basically holding governments accountable. But over the years it became clear that WikiLeaks was growing ever closer to Russia and that all the leaks seemed to go in one direction. There were, there were never leaks that criticized authoritarian governments; only the West and the United States. And at some point the U.S. government, even during the Obama administration, began concluding that WikiLeaks was essentially acting as an arm of Russian intelligence. And then you get to the election. WikiLeaks was the recipient of leaked, hacked Democratic emails. And we’ll all remember that Donald Trump cited WikiLeaks more than 130 times during the campaign because they were publishing DNC emails that were embarrassing to the Democrats. They were clearly helping with this Russian election interference effort. And then the U.S. intelligence community weighed in and said that was not by accident.

MARC STEINER: So this is, I think, how part of the establishment media is going to play this and the Russian connection, that they’re going to push very hard in all of this with Assange. And it’s–and that will muddy the waters. Well, let me just stop there, before I get to the next question.

So I think–so what becomes incumbent on the rest of the media to talk about in light of this, this mass media push?

PAUL JAY: Well, it’s a complete and utter distraction. The whole Russia thing is a complete and utter distraction from the real crimes of the Trump administration. We’ve been saying this over and over again. The Russiagate–this whole raising as a significant issue some perhaps minor meddling in the 2016 elections as a distraction, because it plays into the hands of certain Democrats, Democratic Party, corporate Democrats people call them, the media, to kind of dredge up the demons and ghosts of the Cold War, and actually run to the right of Trump. Like, oh, we’re bigger Cold Warriors than you are; we’re more militarist than you are. In fact it’s not true. Trump is very much a militarist.

But the–but it’s a complete distraction from the specific case as well, because as I just said, this isn’t about Russia. It’s not about hacking Clinton emails. If that’s what it’s about, charge him with that. But he’s not charged with anything to do with the current controversies. He’s charged with working with Chelsea Manning, I’ll say it again, to expose war crimes. So, you know, everything else is just a complete rhetorical, partisan, hysterical response. Russia, no Russia, it’s irrelevant. Do you have the right to expose war crimes as a journalist? Do you have a responsibility? That’s the only issue here.

MARC STEINER: So what he’s being charged with, clearly it has nothing to do with Russia or what people think he did or did not do when it comes to working with Russia in terms of WikiLeaks and the exposure of of Hillary Clinton’s emails. But the issue is that he’s being charged with hacking, which is–that in itself is a crime, if they go after him for that, A. B, so the question is there’s that, and there’s also what might have been at work here we’re not seeing, and why this happened now. I mean, because what he was really hiding from in the Ecuadorian Embassy was not showing up in court for being–to be put on trial in Sweden on rape charges. So he now faces 12 months in English prison, and be extradited to Sweden, too, if they go after him, as well as being extradited to the United States. So what’s at work here?

PAUL JAY: The timing, one can speculate. I think it’s a few things. Recently WikiLeaks exposed the president of Ecuador having some shady bank accounts and involved in some corruption. Moreno. And clearly Moreno is not the same kind of politics as Correa, the previous president, who was willing to stand up to the Americans on various things. This new president is not. And he’s joined in on the attack on isolation of Venezuela, and he’s trying to cozy up to the Trump administration. So he has his own motives. Why should I protect Julian Assange when Wikileaks is exposing some of the corruption in Ecuador? As well as to curry favor with the Americans. Why not? He’s got no love for Assange. So that’s the–there may be more to the Ecuadorian side of the story. But as far as what’s in the public domain, that makes some certain amount of sense.

Why the Americans are pushing it now is partly, I would guess, part of a process. They’ve been wanting to do this for quite some time, and now Ecuador is willing to, for its own reasons. Now, there is some speculation that they want to try to get hold of Assange and push him on the narrative of Trump collaborating with Russia. Politico had a story about that today, that the–you know, the deep state, or the state, Mueller kind of forced this, they want to see if they can still make this collusion case. It’s possible. This whole idea that WikiLeaks is an arm of Russia I think is nonsense. The fact that the accusation that they never publish stuff against authoritarian regimes is not true. They’ve published stuff about Saudi Arabia. They’ve published stuff about Russia, exposing various things in Russia.

But if they expose more about the United States, duh, you think it’s possible because the United States commits more crimes than anywhere else? I mean, maybe because the United States is the global hegemon, and tries to dominate the world with what is it, 800, 900 military bases? A military budget more than the rest of the world put together. So yeah, you know, if you’re going to be in this exposé business it’s not hard a big stretch of the imagination that the United States is going to get most of it. And it’s also funny they say WikiLeaks doesn’t go after authoritarian regimes. Well, most of the authoritarian regimes–not all, but most in the world–are supported by the United States. So the hypocrisy here is too rich.

MARC STEINER: So I mean, if and when he gets extradited to the United States, what he’ll be charged with, clearly, is this hacking, if that happens. I mean, to me I think one of the biggest dangers here–and I’m curious your thoughts on this–and he may have to go to Sweden before he gets the United States, because they clearly want him there, before the statute of limitations runs out in Sweden on rape, and that will take place in 2020. So there’s gonna be a battle taking place over who gets Assange first.

PAUL JAY: It’s not clear that–first of all, let’s be clear about the Swedish case. There are allegations he has denied. The Swedish authorities wanted to interview him and made a big stink about wanting to interview him. But he offered to be interviewed in the Ecuadorian Embassy. And over and over again the Swedes refused to do it. They made the issue he has to come to Sweden, he has to leave the safety of the Ecuadorian Embassy. And there’s absolutely no reason they couldn’t have gone to the embassy and interviewed him. So as far as where the Swedish case is right now, the latest I saw, it’s unclear whether they are going to try to reassert themselves.

MARC STEINER: Well, we don’t know if they’re going to do that or not. But they could very well do that. But the question is that it seems to be the biggest issue here is the United States is using this this alleged hacking and in collusion with–for want of a better term–with Chelsea Manning is one more way to silence the press, one more way to stop journalists doing their investigative work in a democracy, or in a democratic situation. And so it seems to me this is the clearest danger here of what a national security state is doing, to silence people who are whistleblowers as well as those who would expose atrocities that take place by our government. That to me that is one of the biggest dangers.

PAUL JAY: Yeah, I think that that is the biggest issue of the whole arrest. As I said, we’re heading into an extremely dangerous period, the lead up to the 2020 elections. Massive investment in the military budget. But most recently, the Trump administration naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, calling them terrorists.


PAUL JAY: This is something that was tried in 2007 with something called the Kyl Lieberman amendment. aAnd a lot of Democrats voted for it. Although some significant ones didn’t vote for it, including Biden and Obama. Hillary Clinton did. But it was said at the time that that is a step–in fact, it was a Democratic senator who said this–it’s a step towards the military option with Iran. Because once you say the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are terrorists, well, they’re part of the armed forces of the government of Iran. So you’re, you know, one micro hair away from saying that the government of Iran is a terrorist organization. Which means not only can nobody in the world do any business with Iran, but you can’t even negotiate. You know, you’re almost left with only a military option.

And people like John Bolton, the national security adviser for Trump, and others, Pompeo and other people around Trump, and Trump himself, and certainly Steve Bannon, they wanted to go after Iran from day one of this presidency. And a lot of crap is going to come out. Look at the lies that we’re told in the lead up to the war in Iraq. We are going to see the same kind of lies unfold at a super scale towards as they try to destabilize and bring down the government of Iran.

And this is a shot across the bow there, as well. You journalists, you leakers, you better be careful. Because if we can get Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy we can get anybody. And that’s no doubt part one of the reason is to create a real chill. And not just in a generalized way, but as we head into a very dangerous period in history.

MARC STEINER: That makes our job here at The Real News and other places, and places like Real News, all the more important to not let this happen.

PAUL JAY: Let me just add one other thing about why he’s carrying that book. Just to give a little background. Gore Vidal’s History of the National Security State is, as you said, a series of interviews I did with him back in 2007. And at the core of the formation of the national security state–and this is done under Truman, a Democrat–is the underlying narrative that the Soviet Union was an existential military threat to the United States. Now, Soviet Union a lot of people thought was some form of socialism. And you can debate, you know, what you think of that form of socialism. But certainly in 1945-1946 and into the ’50s the Soviet Union was very popular in the world. The Soviet Union had broken the back of Hitler. The Soviet Union was recovering from terrible destruction. There seemed to be full employment and healthcare and so on and so on.

So you know, the sort of viciousness of the Soviet state domestically, it was known. It came to be better known after 1956 in what was called the Khrushchev revelations, and so on. The terror of the Stalin government, and so on. So yeah, ideologically the Soviet Union was a threat. Because socialism versus capitalism. But it was not a military threat. And that was bullshit that the American intelligence agencies, the governments, knew. You watch my series of interviews with Daniel Ellsberg, and it became clear to him–and he had access to a high level intelligence–that the Soviet Union had zero plans to invade Western Europe, the justification for NATO. The Soviet Union had zero plans to use nuclear weapons as blackmail or a threat to assert some kind of global presence. Global domination. The Soviet Union was in a defensive posture.

And the same is true today. Whatever you make of Putin domestically, whatever you make of Russia domestically, you can argue that, you could debate it. There is zero evidence that Russia is trying to project global power in a way that threatens the people of the United States. Yes, is Russia projecting regional power? Sure. So is China. And what mid to big capitalist size country wouldn’t? Only the United States is projecting global power. But it’s not a military threat. And this whole underlying thesis of Russiagate, the Russians are destroying democracy and all of this, this minor meddling is raised to such a level because the military industrial complex and sections of the corporate Democratic Party that have been hawkish, militarist and hawkish from the days of Truman, they need this narrative. It justifies their whole outlook on the global affairs.

MARC STEINER: We don’t have time to get into it today, obviously, in this conversation. I agree, I mean, Russia was never a military threat to the United States in that sense of starting a war and going after Western Europe. And that clearly was not going to happen. But the United States and world capital, period, saw the Soviet Union as a threat because they were supporting revolutionary movements across the globe.

PAUL JAY: That’s what it was really about.

MARC STEINER: That was the real threat. And you had 1.3 billion people from Addis Ababa to Shanghai that were living in communist nations. That was the threat they saw. And they played it off as a threat about a major world war, which allowed the U.S. to build their military. But I mean, I think it’s–anyway.

PAUL JAY: I mean, I agree with that. But just–the point here is that you blame the Russians no matter what the heck is going on. And now, as I say, the real issue of this current arrest of Assange, this is the national security state asserting itself, which is why I think he’s carrying the book around, and it’s a coverup for more crime.

MARC STEINER: Well, I’m glad he was carrying the book around. Maybe people will read it. So, Paul Jay, this has been a pleasure. See you back in Baltimore. Thanks so much for taking the time out in New York.

PAUL JAY: All right, thanks for doing it.

MARC STEINER: And I’m Marc Steiner here at The Real News Network in Baltimore. Thank you all for joining us. Take care.


Read more:



security insurance back stop?...

The arrest of the WikiLeaks co-founder, Julian Assange, has re-ignited speculation around the so-called "insurance" – large encrypted files, uploaded by the website. What they are and when they will get opened is still not known.

Assange's seven-year exile ended on Thursday, when the Metropolitan Police dragged the publisher out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. While his fate is in limbo, even more uncertainty surrounds the WikiLeaks "insurance" files – believed by some to be the website's "dead man's switch" option: a massive encrypted data dump whose decryption keys will be revealed in case Assange gets arrested or killed, or WikiLeaks gets taken down for good.

Now that Assange is in custody, speculation has swirled that the keys are about to be made public – but nothing has happened so far.

The very first file of this type appeared back in July 2010 on the Afghan War Diary page. The encrypted file is strikingly large – larger than all the previous entries of the diary combined.

"If anything happens to Assange or the website, a key will go out to unlock the files. There would then be no way to stop the information from spreading like wildfire because so many people already have copies," CBS correspondent Declan McCullagh said back then.

READ MORE: Ecuadorian police mistook Swedish tech geek ‘linked to Assange’ for Russian – lawyers

Since 2010, WikiLeaks dropped a whole batch of similar "insurance" files – and none of them have been cracked open. In 2010, there were speculations that one of the files was unlocked, yet WikiLeaks said the rumors were not true. 

Emergence of certain "insurance" files have preceded major data dumps by WikiLeaks, which means they might have contained full info of the upcoming release – just in case.

The large size of the files, however, still fuels speculations that there might be more incriminating information in them – or possibly junk data added specifically to the bolster size.


Read more:



"le monde" pisses in its own trousers...

Editorial of Le Monde

Translation by Jules Letambour

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was arrested on Thursday, April 11, by British police in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he had been a refugee for nearly seven years. There are two reasons for this arrest: in 2012, he was released on parole (he faces a year in prison in the United Kingdom), and he was targeted by a US extradition request for helping a military analyst obtain confidential government documents. (he faces five years in prison in the United States).


Before talking about the fate of "whistleblowers" in the fight against state secrets, we must clarify two obvious facts. First, Julian Assange is a litigant like the others.


His involvement with the police started because he refused to go to a Swedish police summons who wanted to hear him after the complaints of two women for sexual assault, on the whimsical motive, at the time, he feared that Sweden would deliver it to the CIA. He was wrong to refuse to explain these serious accusations.


Second, Julian Assange is not a friend of human rights. When, in 2010, he approached five newspapers, including Le Monde, to explore the content of US military and diplomatic documents, the agreement was clear: WikiLeaks had to accept the ethics policy of these five media, including source protection. Published documents were expurgated from the sensitive identities of people living in totalitarian countries and potentially endangered. The following year, Mr. Assange went back on his word and published the documents, without filter, in their entirety. Le Monde has denounced this process; other media, on the other hand, continued to support it. The reality is that today he left the world of human rights defenders to join the absolutists of transparency, making, by the way, a gift to the worst security services on the planet.




What happened next with Julian Assange is complex, but it shows a guideline: the anti-American activist attacks the secrets of democratic countries, and rarely to those of totalitarian countries. 


He worked for Russia Today, the pro-Putin television funded by the Kremlin. And he used WikiLeaks, during the 2016 US presidential campaign, as a distributor of documents stolen by Russian secret services from the Democratic Party and his candidate, Hillary Clinton, with the aim of discrediting it. He did, like Moscow, helped Donald Trump win the election.






The problem, with the US charge, is that it aims to avenge the disclosure of documents in 2010, while this was a matter of public interest disclosure. The Obama administration had refused to take that step, as its lawyers saw it as an infringement of the first amendment to the constitution, guaranteeing freedom of expression. This is not what the Trump administration has done.


In addition to Assange's bet on Mr. Trump to alleviate the judicial threats against him proved unnecessary, the background of the case worried the defenders of freedom of expression. The charge is for the moment limited to having helped his source, the military analyst Bradley Manning - become Chelsea during his detention - to have hacked a computer of the government: it is thus Assange the hacker who would be aimed, and that already raises questions. 

But if the charge were to be extended to publishing information of public interest, then it would be the freedom to inform that would become the target. It would not be acceptable.



chomsky tells it like it is...



This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman in Boston, as we sit down with Noam Chomsky for a public conversation. I asked him about the arrest of Julian Assange.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the Assange arrest is scandalous in several respects. One of them is just the effort of governments—and it’s not just the U.S. government. The British are cooperating. Ecuador, of course, is now cooperating. Sweden, before, had cooperated. The efforts to silence a journalist who was producing materials that people in power didn’t want the rascal multitude to know about—OK?—that’s basically what happened. WikiLeaks was producing things that people ought to know about those in power. People in power don’t like that, so therefore we have to silence it. OK? This is the kind of thing, the kind of scandal, that takes place, unfortunately, over and over.

To take another example, right next door to Ecuador, in Brazil, where the developments that have gone on are extremely important. This is the most important country in Latin America, one of the most important in the world. Under the Lula government early in this millennium, Brazil was the most—maybe the most respected country in the world. It was the voice for the Global South under the leadership of Lula da Silva. Notice what happened. There was a coup, soft coup, to eliminate the nefarious effects of the labor party, the Workers’ Party. These are described by the World Bank—not me, the World Bank—as the “golden decade” in Brazil’s history, with radical reduction of poverty, a massive extension of inclusion of marginalized populations, large parts of the population—Afro-Brazilian, indigenous—who were brought into the society, a sense of dignity and hope for the population. That couldn’t be tolerated.

After Lula’s—after he left office, a kind of a “soft coup” take place—I won’t go through the details, but the last move, last September, was to take Lula da Silva, the leading, the most popular figure in Brazil, who was almost certain to win the forthcoming election, put him in jail, solitary confinement, essentially a death sentence, 25 years in jail, banned from reading press or books, and, crucially, barred from making a public statement—unlike mass murderers on death row. This, in order to silence the person who was likely to win the election. He’s the most important political prisoner in the world. Do you hear anything about it?

Well, Assange is a similar case: We’ve got to silence this voice. You go back to history. Some of you may recall when Mussolini’s fascist government put Antonio Gramsci in jail. The prosecutor said, “We have to silence this voice for 20 years. Can’t let it speak.” That’s Assange. That’s Lula. There are other cases. That’s one scandal.

The other scandal is just the extraterritorial reach of the United States, which is shocking. I mean, why should the United States—why should any—no other state could possibly do it. But why should the United States have the power to control what others are doing elsewhere in the world? I mean, it’s an outlandish situation. It goes on all the time. We never even notice it. At least there’s no comment on it.

Like, take the trade agreements with China. OK? What are the trade agreements about? They’re an effort to prevent China’s economic development. It’s exactly what they are. Now, China has a development model. The Trump administration doesn’t like it. So, therefore, let’s undermine it. Ask yourself: What would happen if China did not observe the rules that the United States is trying to impose? China, for example, when Boeing or Microsoft, some other major company, invests in China, China wants to have some control over the nature of the investment. They want some degree of technology transfer. They should gain something from the technology. Is there something wrong with that? That’s how the United States developed, stealing—what we call stealing—technology from England. It’s how England developed, taking technology from more advanced countries—India, the Low Countries, even Ireland. That’s how every developed country has reached the stage of advanced development. If Boeing and Microsoft don’t like those arrangements, they don’t have to invest in China. Nobody has a gun to their heads. If anybody really believed in capitalism, they should be free to make any arrangement they want with China. If it involves technology transfer, OK. The United States wants to block that, so China can’t develop.

Take what are called intellectual property rights, exorbitant patent rights for medicines, for Windows, for example. Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, through the World Trade Organization. Suppose China didn’t observe these. Who would benefit, and who would lose? Well, the fact of the matter is that consumers in the United States would benefit. It would mean that you’d get cheaper medicines. It would mean that when you get a computer, that you wouldn’t be stuck with Windows. You could get a better operating system. Bill Gates would have a little less money. The pharmaceutical corporations wouldn’t be as super-rich as they are, a little less rich. But the consumers would benefit. Is there something wrong with that? Is there a problem with that?

Well, you might ask yourself: What lies behind all of these discussions and negotiations? This is true across the board. Almost any issue you pick, you can ask yourself: Why is this accepted? So, in this case, why is it acceptable for the United States to have the power to even begin to give even a proposal to extradite somebody whose crime is to expose to the public materials that people in power don’t want them to see? That’s basically what’s happening.

pushing the #mefuckingassange angle...

Do you know the Swedish Chief Prosecutor initially handling the allegations of rape against Julian Assange found no case to answer? Are you aware she was succeeded by Marianne Ny, who has pursued a legally dubious course? Have you read Assange’s detailed statement?

Yesterday’s Guardian ran with Failure to extradite Assange to Sweden would endorse ‘rape culture’, say women’s groups. Four paragraphs in, it says:


Sarah Green, co-director of End Violence Against Women, an alliance of more than 80 organisations, said Assange’s portrayal as a victim was an affront to rape survivors.

“He’s always benefited from his cult hero status, painting himself as a victim and being very righteous. Yet this is about rape, it’s what he is accused of. It’s extremely serious.”


This is about rape? Really? Here’s me thinking the pretext for his arrest a technicality on bail, with the unsealed extradition request from Virginia speaking of conspiring to crack a password; end of.

Should Assange be extradited there’s no knowing, of course, what other charges may be added, including capital ones whose inclusion at this stage would debar extradition under UK law. But Green shows no concern and that, I fear, is of a piece with the recklessness with which, as Eric London argued, presumption of innocence is ditched by ‘progressives’ when sexual misconduct is alleged.

But insofar as that adjective can ever apply to rape, London is speaking of ‘normal’ cases. Since Assange’s could not be further from anything passing for normality, the recklessness I speak of rises exponentially. Given what Assange has told us, all of it falsifiable and none of it falsified, of the criminality of our rulers; given even what we knew before Wikileaks of their capacity to lie in circumstances less conducive, it takes myopia and blind faith to new and dizzying heights to insist that this is about rape.

No, Ms Green, with all due respect it is not, and that holds even in the unlikely event of Assange being convicted, through fair trial in a truly independent court, of that very serious crime.

In a 2012 piece, We are Women Against Rape but do not want Julian Assange extradited, Katrina Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff offer a reading that should have leapt out at anyone the moment the allegations, still repeatedly misrepresented as ‘charges’, saw light of day:


When Julian Assange was first arrested, we were struck by the unusual zeal with which he was being pursued for rape allegations.

It seems even clearer now, that the allegations against him are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction.


Quite. And if like me you say rape is a deadly serious matter, don’t you owe it yourself, Assange and his alleged victims to spend a little time reading what the man himself is saying? In 2016 he made a lengthy statement, not to my knowledge published in any corporate media – least of all a Guardian which, having gained handsomely from a book for which Assange received nothing, has led an odious narrative of vilification – but posted on Document Cloud and beginning thus:


You have subjected me to six years of unlawful, politicized detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and four and a half years at this embassy. You should have asked me this question six years ago. Your actions in refusing to take my statement for the last six years have been found to be unlawful by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and by the Swedish Court of Appeal. You have been found to have subjected me to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. You have denied me effective legal representation in this process. Despite this, I feel compelled to cooperate even though you are not safeguarding my rights.


The full statement can be downloaded in PDF form here. It took me the best part of an hour to read but that won’t put you off, I’m sure. Didn’t I hear you telling me rape is serious?


Read more:

the full assange statement...


You have subjected me to six years of unlawful, politicized detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and four and a half years at this embassy. You should have asked me this question six years ago. Your actions in refusing to take my statement for the last six years have been found to be unlawful by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and by the Swedish Court of Appeal. You have been found to have subjected me to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. You have denied me effective legal representation in this process. Despite this, I feel compelled to cooperate even though you are not safeguarding my rights.


I, Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, have had my passport taken by British authorities and so cannot provide formal identification, am in a situation of arbitrary detention according to the decision of the United Nations Working Group of Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) of 4 December 2015; a political refugee since 19 June 2012 at the Embassy of Ecuador with asylum which was granted by Ecuador on 16 August 2012, and hereby appear before the authorities of Sweden and Ecuador in the framework of a rogatory commission that has been entered between these two states, requested by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, and declare that:

  1. I ratify what has been expressed by my Ecuadorian lawyer, both in relation to this procedure today and the concerns about the procedure pursued against me in Sweden, including the failure to allow my Swedish lawyer to be present and the failure to provide me with exculpatory and other discovery material, which I have, to date, not been given proper access to, including in the preparation for this statement today.

  2. Today, 14 November 2016, after having made myself available to the Swedish authorities since the start of this outrageous process six years ago, I am finally given the opportunity to give my statement to the Swedish preliminary investigation. I am grateful to Ecuador for attempting to facilitate this process in the circumstances where the Swedish prosecutor has declined, since 2010, to accept this, my first statement on the allegation against me.

  3. I went to Sweden on 11 August 2010. During my stay, I met a woman (hereinafter called ”SW”). On the evening of 16 August, 2010 she invited me to her home. During the night and in the morning we had consensual sexual intercourse on several occasions.

  4. I therefore could not believe my eyes when five days later I saw a headline in a Swedish tabloid that I was suspected of a crime and arrested in my absence. I immediately made myself available to the Swedish authorities to clarify any questions that might exist, although I had no obligation to do so.

  5. That same day (21 August 2010), the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finné, dropped the arrest warrant against me and within days would close the preliminary investigation with the finding that no crime whatsoever had been committed against the woman “SW” (who is the subject of this procedure). I drew the conclusion that, other than the worldwide damage to my reputation caused by millions of web pages saying that I was “wanted for rape”, my life, in this respect, would return to normal.

  1. On 23 August 2010, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finné stated she "made the

    assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape".

  2. On 25 August, the Chief Prosecutor found that "The conduct alleged disclosed no crime at

    all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed".

  3. A week later, I learned to my surprise that a different prosecutor by the name of “Marianne Ny” had reopened the preliminary investigation without any consultation or opportunity for me to be heard – after I had already been cleared and the case had been closed.

  4. That prosecutor eventually issued an extradition warrant against me, supposedly to take my statement, even though I left Sweden with her permission and in good faith, and had repeatedly tried to see if the prosecutor was ready to accept my statement. I had not and have still not been charged with a crime.

  5. It has taken more than six years for the prosecutor to now obtain my statement. The delay is entirely caused by the prosecutor who re-opened the closed preliminary investigation. A prosecutor is, according to Swedish law (Chapter 23, Section 4 of the Procedural Code), obligated to conduct the preliminary investigation as expeditiously as possible and when there is no longer reason for pursuing the investigation, it shall be discontinued. At the preliminary investigation phase, the prosecutor is obligated to take into account all the circumstances: those against the suspect as well as those circumstances in favour of the suspect, and any evidence favourable to the suspect shall be preserved. The investigation shall be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.

  6. Instead of following the law, prosecutor Marianne Ny has kept the preliminary investigation open without justification for over six years. She deliberately suspended her work to progress and bring to a conclusion the preliminary investigation. She has for more than six years refused to take my statement during which time she has done nothing to pursue the preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation entered into a stasis more than six years ago. I have always demonstrated my willingness to cooperate in order to speed up the process – although there is no obligation whatsoever for me to do so. All the obligation is on the prosecutor to progress the preliminary investigation. This attitude of the prosecutor has clearly breached mandatory rules in Swedish law.

  7. I reiterate that over the past six years, I have continued to call for this prosecutor to accept my statement, including by:

    • —  Willingly attending a questioning on 30 August 2010 in Stockholm, where no questions were asked about the allegation, as I had already been cleared.

    • —  Staying in Sweden for more than five weeks longer than planned, repeatedly asking if or when I could give a statement, despite pressing commitments elsewhere.

    • —  Gaining the prosecutor's consent to leave Sweden before doing so on 27 September 2010 in good faith, understanding that I was not required to provide a further statement for the time being. On the day I left the country three of my encrypted laptops were seized from me at Stockholm's Arlanda airport. The laptops contained evidence of war crimes pending publication and protected legal correspondence.

    • —  Offering to return to Sweden to give a statement in October 2010.

page2image28904 page2image29064 page2image29224 page2image29384 page2image29544 page2image29704 page2image29864 page2image30024 page2image30184 page2image30344 page2image30504 page2image30664 page2image30824 page2image30984 page2image31144
  • —  Offering to give my statement from London via numerous methods including telephone or videolink or in writing from London between October 2010 and up to and through the prosecutor unnecessarily issuing a European Arrest Warrant. The European Arrest Warrant attempted to extradite me, without charge, from the UK to Sweden, to take my statement. I was actively offering the testimony she claimed she wanted when she sought my arrest.

  • —  Providing a DNA sample six years ago in December 2010 when I was first arrested at Sweden's request and which has been available to the prosecutor for the last six years. She has never bothered to even attempt to use it.

  • —  Offering to give a statement in London via Mutual Legal Assistance, among other suggestions, during my time of house arrest (7 December 2010 – 19 June 2012).

  • —  Offering to give a statement in the Ecuadorian embassy in London as from 19 June 2012, for instance via email from my Swedish lawyers on 24 July 2012 and during a meeting between my lawyers and the prosecutors in Stockholm 7 May 2013 – over four years ago and over three years ago respectively.

  • —  Offering to come to Sweden provided Sweden would give a guarantee that I am not extradited to another state over my publishing work. This offer was also requested by Ecuador through diplomatic channels and publicly in 2012, as I am a refugee in its jurisdiction.

  1. As this demonstrates, although I have no obligation to do so, I have done everything within my power to offer my testimony to the prosecutor while protecting my right to asylum and protecting myself against the risk of extradition to the United States, where there is an open national security case against me. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, WikiLeaks' alleged source in that matter, Chelsea Manning, has been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in US detention, and has since been convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

  2. The state of Sweden has refused to provide me the necessary assurances against extradition or other transport to the United States since 2010 when such was asked by my lawyers and since 2012 when requested to do so by the state of Ecuador. Sweden has also refused to accept that the asylum Ecuador has granted me requires it to protect me from onwards extradition to the United States, despite this being the recognized norm in asylum cases, thus making it impossible for me to go to Sweden without giving up my fundamental right as a political refugee. This refusal to recognize my rights as a political refugee has been the sole impediment to my presence in Sweden. I explicitly offered to accept extradition to Sweden provided it simply guarantee that it will not transfer me to another state. This was declined.

  3. Nevertheless, I have continued to offer the prosecutor my statement through mechanisms which can be employed to achieve her stated purpose without putting at risk my fundamental rights, which she has, until recently, rejected.

  4. Two years ago the Svea Court of Appeal on 20 November 2014 severely criticized the prosecutor for her negligence:

    “The Court of Appeal notes, however, that the investigation into the suspected crimes has come to a halt and considers that the failure of the prosecutors to examine alternative avenues is not in line with their obligation – in the interests of everyone concerned – to move the preliminary investigation forward.”

page3image29664 page3image29824 page3image29984 page3image30144 page3image30304 page3image30464 page3image30624 page3image30784 page3image30944 page3image31104 page3image31264
  1. It was not until March 2015 that Marianne Ny finally – after she had been found in breach of her duties by Sweden's Court of Appeal and my case was before the Supreme Court and it became apparent that she might lose – claimed that she would, under certain restrictive conditions, accept my statement after all.

  2. Since that time, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) released its ruling on 5 February 2016 that my situation in the embassy amounts to an unlawful and arbitrary detention, in breach of Sweden's binding legal obligations under international law. UNWGAD found that Sweden and the UK have disregarded the asylum that I have been granted by Ecuador, forcing me to choose between deprivation of liberty and the risk of losing Ecuador's protection and being extradited to the United States.

  3. It then took Marianne Ny more than 18 months after her claimed change of position at the Supreme Court to arrange this meeting. I have not been responsible for a single day of delay in this process. All the delay has been caused by prosecutor Marianne Ny and the state authorities. Again note that all the obligation is on the prosecutor.

  4. Furthermore, the UNWGAD concluded that the Swedish prosecutor has breached my due process rights in the conduct of this preliminary investigation and that seeking my extradition to Sweden as the only option in these circumstances was ”excessive and unnecessary” [para 97]. In particular, it found:

    “...after more than five years' time lapse, he is still left at the stage of preliminary investigation with no predictability as to whether and when a formal process of any judicial dealing would commence...” [para. 97] “...Mr Assange has been denied the opportunity to provide a statement, which is a fundamental aspect of the audi alteram partem principle, the access to exculpatory evidence, and thus the opportunity to defend himself against the allegations...” [para. 98] “...the duration of such detention is ipso facto incompatible with the presumption of innocence.” [para. 98]

  5. As a result of the Swedish prosecutor's actions, UNWGAD found my circumstances to be of an increasingly serious deprivation of liberty which is of an indefinite nature and is already far longer than the maximum penalty I could ever theoretically face in Sweden. For these reasons UNWGAD found that the severe and indefinite nature of these deprivations amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Sweden's obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 7. The severity of this treatment is further confirmed by the expert opinion of Fernando Mariño, the former President of the UN Committee Against Torture, which is entered into the official record of this proceeding.

  6. Ten months after the UNWGAD determination the harshness of the situation continues to affect my physical and psychological health. My lawyers have informed the Swedish authorities of the ongoing deterioration of my health through the medical certificates and expert opinions of Dr. Michael Korzinski and Dr. Fluxman, from 11 November 2015; of Dr. Ladbrooke from 8 December 2015; of Dr. Michael Korzinski from 15 June 2016; and of Dr. Ladbrooke from 9 November 2016.

  7. And so, finally, here we are today, under the jurisdiction of Ecuador, with my rights ever increasingly limited, as my Ecuadorian defence counsel has expressed. After more than six

page4image28280 page4image28440 page4image28600 page4image28760 page4image28920 page4image29080 page4image29240

years, I am finally being given the “opportunity” to give my statement but with my Swedish counsel having been excluded and under a clear situation of legal defencelessness, resulting from years of negligence and intentional and unlawful delays by the Swedish authorities.

  1. All the irregularities that have occurred through the acts or omissions of the prosecution authority and the six-year delay to date of this disproportionate, inhumane and unlawful preliminary investigation have permanently destroyed all possibilities for me to properly defend myself – which is no doubt their intention.

  2. Following the above, I wish to express in the strongest terms, that, in addition to the breaches of my due process rights in the investigation to date, the procedure to be adopted today in taking my statement further breaches those rights:

    • —  My Swedish defence lawyer was not permitted to be present today, despite the fact that these proceedings concern a Swedish criminal preliminary investigation.

    • —  In the opinion of my general practitioner, I am unfit to prepare and participate in these proceedings (after having been denied hospital treatment and sunlight for 4.5 years).

    • —  My Ecuadorian defence counsel has had no access to the case file, let alone in Spanish, the language he understands, nor has he had adequate time to prepare my defence.

    • —  My lawyers and I have not been permitted access to the case file.

    • —  I have been denied my request to read the text messages that my Swedish defence lawyers have read, which are a key element to my defence because they clearly show

      that I am innocent.

  3. Due to all the shortcomings stated above, prosecutor Marianne Ny should have drawn the obvious conclusion that she discontinue the preliminary investigation.

  4. In this context I once again remind you that I have already been cleared and that the

    preliminary investigation was closed by Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné in August 2010.

  5. Given this history I have good reason to have concern about whether this “preliminary investigation” is being conducted in good faith and whether honest and impartial consideration will be given to my statement. I suspect that the real purpose of the Swedish prosecutor coming here today is not to obtain my statement but is simply a ruse to tick a box to ensure the technical possibility to indict me, irrespective of how I answer any questions.

  6. I do not believe that prosecutor Marianne Ny is acting in good faith or with the objectivity and impartiality required of her office. For example, after circumventing the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm's decision to close this case, prosecutor Ny has made at least 40 press releases and press conferences about me where my name has been published, even though there is no charge against me and I have been previously cleared, subjecting me to endless needless suspicion, in clear violation of her duty to not do so under Chapter 23, Section 4 of the Swedish Procedural Code.

  7. My overall conclusion is that the prosecutor's conduct of the preliminary investigation, for all the reasons above has continued to deprive me of the right to defend myself.

page5image27328 page5image27488 page5image27648 page5image27808 page5image27968 page5image28128
  1. I have no obligation to cooperate with this abuse, but I find myself in a coercive situation. I am meant to be protected by the decision of the UNWGAD which makes it clear that this “preliminary investigation” has violated my human rights and that its attempts to arrest me should be discontinued immediately. That decision was issued almost a year ago, but my situation remains unchanged. Despite the many violations already described I feel compelled to give my statement today so that there can be no more excuses for the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny to continue my indefinite unlawful detention, which is a threat to my health and even to my life. I have been pushing and indeed litigating for this prosecutor to take my statement for more than six years. The prosecutor has made excuse after excuse to not take my statement. I will not grant this prosecutor any excuse to continue to avoid taking my statement as I fear she would use it as a means to indefinitely prolong my cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.


  2. I am the editor-in-chief and publisher of WikiLeaks, a publishing organisation specializing in the analysis of records under risk of censorship that are of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance. Among other countries, WikiLeaks publishes and analyses documents that concern the United States, Sweden and the United Kingdom, including millions of documents relating to actions of military, intelligence and foreign services. I have received numerous awards in relation to my publishing work, including the 2008 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award, The Economist New Media Award (USA) 2008, the 2009 Amnesty International UK Media Award (New Media), the 2010 Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (USA) award, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal (Australia), the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (UK), the 2011 Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (Australia), the 2011 Blanquerna Award for Best Communicator (Spain), the 2011 International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists, the 2011 Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (Spain), the 2012 Privacy International Award, the 2013 Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award, and the 2013 Global Exchange Human Rights Awards, as well as formal nominations for the United Nations' Mandela Prize (2014) and for the past six consecutive years for the Nobel Peace Prize.

  3. The US launched an investigation against me in early 2010 under the Obama administration, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. This administration has expended very substantial resources on attempting to prosecute me and attempting to spy on my publishing work despite its constitutionally protected status. The US government's WikiLeaks investigation is described in official diplomatic correspondence as being “unprecedented in scale and nature”.

  4. All the citations I mention are in my affidavit from 2 September 2013, which I am entering into the official record of this proceeding.

  5. The US government has periodically confirmed in public that the national security case against WikiLeaks remains open and ongoing, including in proceedings from this year. Numerous human rights and freedom of speech organizations such as Human Rights Watch have criticized the Obama administration for pursuing a criminal case against WikiLeaks and me.

page6image27520 page6image27680 page6image27840 page6image28000 page6image28160 page6image28320 page6image28480
  1. The investigation against Wikileaks is led by the FBI and has involved a dozen other agencies, including the CIA, the NSA, and the Defence Intelligence Agency. The US government has described the investigation as a "whole of government" investigation. In Alexandria, Virginia, a Grand Jury has been meeting behind closed doors for the past six years under case number 10GJ3793 to explore ways to imprison me and seven others who they have identified as "founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks". The prosecution in the Chelsea Manning case attempted to establish that Private Manning acted as an agent under my control rather than as a journalistic source of mine, even though in Private Manning's own statement to the court, she said this was not the case. The US military charged Private Manning with twenty-two counts in connection with the release of more than 700,000 classified or confidential documents to WikiLeaks. On 30 July 2013 private Manning was convicted of twenty of these counts and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison on 20 August 2013.

  2. Private Manning was detained for more than 1,000 days before the trial commenced. During this time she remained for 258 days in solitary confinement. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture found that the conditions and length of private Private Manning's confinement at Quantico, Virginia, amounted to “inhuman and degrading treatment”. Private Manning's lawyer, David Coombs, said that the treatment of Private Manning was an attempt at breaking her so that Manning would implicate me. The US military court system eventually found that Private Manning was unlawfully punished as a result of this treatment while in US custody. Private Manning was convicted of espionage; the first whistleblower ever so convicted. Private Manning was acquitted of the "aiding the enemy" charge, but the US government could still seek to employ this charge against me. Private Manning is serving a 35 year prison sentence.

  3. According to the respected UK newspaper The Independent, the US and Sweden entered informal talks regarding my extradition from Sweden to the United States in early December 2010. These talks of my extradition concerned the US Grand Jury and FBI investigation against WikiLeaks, which is also the reason that Ecuador granted me asylum.

  4. The aggressive calls to stop WikiLeaks from publishing were the reason for my travel to Stockholm. US officials' rhetoric grew increasingly aggressive in the period immediately prior to my visit to Sweden on 11 August 2010. In June, a Daily Beast news report entitled 'The State Department’s Worst Nightmare' revealed that the Pentagon was “conducting an aggressive investigation” into whether WikiLeaks had 260,000 US diplomatic cables and the material's whereabouts.

  5. Two days later, an article titled 'Pentagon Manhunt' appeared, describing Pentagon investigators desperately trying to track me down in relation to the impending publication of Cablegate:

    “Anxious that Wikileaks may be on the verge of publishing a batch of secret State Department cables, investigators are desperately searching for founder Julian Assange”.

  6. On 17 June 2010 US Department of Defense spokesman Geoff Morrell stated there was an

    "ongoing criminal investigation [concerning WikiLeaks], involving the Army Criminal Investigation Division, as well as, I believe, some other law enforcement agencies.”

page7image27160 page7image27320 page7image27480 page7image27640
  1. The Pentagon officials “would not discuss the methods being used to find Assange, nor would they say if they had information to suggest where he is now.” On reading this, I realised WikiLeaks' continued ability to publish effectively and my own personal safety were at serious risk.

  2. During the month of July I worked with a team of journalists in the United Kingdom to publish the Afghan War Diaries: 75,000 secret Pentagon documents about the war in Afghanistan, which included the detailed records about the deaths of nearly 20,000 people. The day after WikiLeaks published the Afghan War Diaries, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that WikiLeaks “poses a very real and potential threat”.

  3. I published the Afghan War Diaries approximately two weeks before I travelled to Sweden. In the aftermath of the publication, US government officials made efforts to influence the way in which the media reported on our publications. The purpose was to delegitimise WikiLeaks protections as a publisher under the US First Amendment. For example, it attempted to falsely cast WikiLeaks as an adversary, opposed to US national interests, a false claim that I would later see echoed in Swedish media.

  4. The New York Times reported that the White House had emailed its reporters with suggested “reporting tacks to take” on WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks' disclosures, in an attempt to induce news outlets into referring to WikiLeaks in these terms.

  5. The White House sent an e-mail with the subject heading “Thoughts on Wikileaks” containing a memo in which the White House

    "advised journalists on possible reporting tacks to take on the [Afghan War Diaries] documents [...] As you report on this issue, it’s worth noting that wikileaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes US policy in Afghanistan."

  6. I also learned from news reports that security authorities from my home country Australia were assisting the US intelligence investigation into WikiLeaks and me:

    "Australian security authorities are assisting a United States intelligence probe into the whistleblower website Wikileaks and its Australian founder and editor, Julian Assange. The US request for support in what Australian national security sources described as 'a counter-espionage investigation' preceded Wikileaks' dramatic publication yesterday of a leaked US military operations log, described as an ''extraordinary compendium'' of 91,000 reports by United States and allied soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.”

  7. On July 28th, just three days after publishing the Afghan War Diaries and two weeks before I travelled to Sweden, US Department of Defense Secretary Gates “called FBI Director Robert Mueller and asked for the FBI's assistance in [the WikiLeaks] investigation as a partner.” The US Defence Department declared:

    "Calling on the FBI to aid the investigation ensures that the department will have all the resources needed to investigate... noting that use of the bureau ensures the investigation can go wherever it needs to go.”

page8image25112 page8image25272 page8image25432 page8image25592 page8image25752 page8image25912 page8image26072 page8image26232 page8image26392
  1. The New York Times reported that US Defense Secretary Robert Gates

    "declined to comment about the investigation beyond noting that he had enlisted the

    Federal Bureau of Investigation to assist Army investigators, a move that is seen as

    a precursor to potentially charging people who are not uniformed service members

    [...] A person familiar with the investigation has said that Justice Department lawyers are exploring whether Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks could be charged with inducing, or conspiring in, violations of the Espionage Act, a 1917 law that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of national security information."

  2. On 1 August 2010, the press reported that the FBI and British police were carrying out searches and interrogations in the UK, where I found myself at the time, in connection with WikiLeaks' publications.

  3. Over the next days, US rhetoric and actions against WikiLeaks intensified. Prominent commentators and former White House officials championed extraterritorial measures and the violation of international law “if necessary”.

  4. One of these commentators was former presidential speech writer Marc Thiessen, who published a Washington Post article entitled 'WikiLeaks Must be Stopped':

    "...the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice."

  5. Thiessen argued that the US should put pressure on any state in which I was located and that the US should, if necessary, arrest me even without the consent of that state. He cited legal advice from the Department of Justice regarding FBI operations abroad:

    “The United States should make clear that it will not tolerate any country -- and particularly NATO allies such as Belgium and Iceland -- providing safe haven for criminals who put the lives of NATO forces at risk. With appropriate diplomatic pressure, these governments may cooperate in bringing Assange to justice. But if they refuse, the United States can arrest Assange on their territory without their knowledge or approval."

  6. Thiessen further asserted that the FBI could violate international law in order to stop me and apprehend other people associated with WikiLeaks' publishing activities. Thiessen cited a Department of Justice memo:

    "the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI's actions contravene customary international law" and that an "arrest that is inconsistent with international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment." In other words, we do not need permission to apprehend Assange or his co-conspirators anywhere in the world.

    Arresting Assange would be a major blow to his organization. But taking him off the streets is not enough; we must also recover the documents he unlawfully possesses

page9image24248 page9image24408 page9image24568 page9image24728 page9image24888 page9image25048 page9image25208 page9image25368 page9image25528 page9image25688 page9image25848 page9image26008 page9image26168 page9image26328 page9image26488 page9image26648

and disable the system he has built to illegally disseminate classified information.

This should be done, ideally, through international law enforcement cooperation.

But if such cooperation is not forthcoming, the United States can and should act alone."

  1. Seven days before I travelled to Sweden I was acutely aware that my personal safety was at risk. Scott Horton, legal affairs and national security contributor at Harper's, wrote the article 'WikiLeaks: The National-Security State Strikes Back':

    "[Assange] will certainly be targeted for petty harassment and subject to steady surveillance, and efforts to kidnap him are almost certainly being spun at this very moment."

  2. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell announced an anti-WikiLeaks task force comprised of 80 people was operating 24 hours a day. One month later, it had grown to 120 people. The “distinct responsibility” of the Information Review Task Force – dubbed by some occupants as the “WikiLeaks War Room” – was

    " gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges."

  3. The article “'The General Gunning for WikiLeaks” described the task force:

    "In a nondescript suite of government offices not far from the Pentagon, nearly 120 intelligence analysts, FBI agents, and others are at work—24 hours a day, seven days a week—on the frontlines of the government’s secret war against WikiLeaks. Dubbed the WikiLeaks War Room by some of its occupants, the round-the-clock operation is on high alert this month ..."

  4. The same article states that Brig. General Robert A. Carr, who runs “the Pentagon’s equivalent to the CIA”, the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was “handpicked” by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to head the team because he “is highly respected ...and a fitting adversary to Assange”.

  5. General Carr’s “central assignment” was reportedly “to try to determine exactly what classified information might have been leaked to WikiLeaks”. General Carr testified at the Chelsea Manning sentencing hearing on 31 July 2013.

  6. I followed closely how pressure mounted on US allies to track my movements and to stop our publications. Official sources within the administration revealed to the press that the US was not only considering how to prosecute me in relation to WikiLeaks' publications in the US, but was also requesting their allies to prosecute me under their own national security laws:

    "American officials confirmed last month that the Justice Department was weighing a range of criminal charges against Assange and others [...]

page10image23104 page10image23264 page10image23424 page10image23584 page10image23744 page10image23904 page10image24064 page10image24224 page10image24384 page10image24544 page10image24704 page10image24864 page10image25024 page10image25184 page10image25344 page10image25504 page10image25664

Now, the officials say, they want other foreign governments to consider the same sorts of criminal charges."

An article published the day before I went to Sweden stated that "The Obama administration is pressing Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allied Western governments to consider opening criminal investigations of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and to severely limit his nomadic travels across international borders, American officials say."

  1. In addition to the stated intention to restrict my freedom of movement, the US government attempted to convince its allies not to allow me entry into their territory as a warning to me, to those working with me and WikiLeaks, and to our supporters:

    "Through diplomatic and military channels, the Obama administration is hoping to convince Britain, Germany, and Australia, among other allied governments, that Assange should not be welcome on their shores either, given the danger that his group poses to their troops stationed in Afghanistan, American officials say. They say severe limitations on Assange’s travels might serve as a useful warning to his followers that their own freedom is now at risk."

  2. The Australian government publicly entertained the possibility of canceling my passport, reportedly as a result of pressure placed on Australia by the United States. Australian Attorney General Robert McClelland assured the United States that the Australian government would “provide every assistance to United States law-enforcement authorities”, including by exploring the possibility of canceling my passport.

  3. US pressure even resulted in public attempts to influence decisions based on human rights considerations where I and WikiLeaks were concerned. Through US ambassador to Switzerland Donald Beyer, the Obama administration pressured Switzerland not to grant me political asylum while I participated at the UN Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review of the United States. US ambassador Beyer gave an interview to Swiss newspaper Sonntag:

    "The United States ambassador to Switzerland, Donald Beyer, has also entered the Wikileaks debate. He has warned the Swiss government against granting Assange asylum, which the Australian founder of Wikileaks has said he was considering requesting. “Switzerland should very carefully consider whether to provide shelter to someone who is on the run from the law”.

  4. The Daily Beast reported that Washington was prepared to review its diplomatic relations with Iceland because parts of WikiLeaks operations had been conducted in that country:

    “An American military official tells The Daily Beast that Washington may also want to closely review its relations with Iceland in the wake of the release of the Afghan war logs.”

  5. In the context of my heightened concerns about US activities in the United Kingdom in relation to the WikiLeaks investigation, I decided to leave the country. When I travelled to Sweden on 11 August 2010, the aggressive rhetoric against me had reached new heights.

page11image24360 page11image24520 page11image24680 page11image24840 page11image25000 page11image25160 page11image25320 page11image25480 page11image25640 page11image25800 page11image25960 page11image26120 page11image26280 page11image26440 page11image26600

Former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith told National Public Radio:

“I think it is entirely appropriate for us to be very aggressive [...] If I were the US government, I would be trying to make it as difficult as possible for the WikiLeaks founder to continue to do business... To the extent we can persuade our allies to consider prosecution, I think that's all to the good.”

  1. On the same day I arrived in Sweden, 11 August 2010, I received information from an Australian intelligence source that extra-legal actions might be taken against me by the US or its allies. This was later reported in the Australian newspaper The Age:

    “An Australian intelligence official privately warned Wikileaks on August 11 last year that Assange was the subject of inquiries by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and that information relating to him and others associated with Wikileaks had been provided to the US in response to requests through intelligence liaison channels. The Australian intelligence official is also claimed to have specifically warned that Assange could be at risk of 'dirty tricks' from the US intelligence community.”

  2. Friends and associates of mine and volunteers for WikiLeaks were regularly targeted at borders from this moment on. Border searches and interrogations have affected security researcher Jacob Appelbaum, who had given the keynote speech in my place at the HOPE conference on 16 July 2010. In an interview for Democracy Now, Appelbaum described the targeting he experiences at airports:

    In the period of time since [the HOPE conference on 16 July 2010] they’ve started detaining me, around a dozen-plus times... I was put into a special room, where they frisked me, put me up against the wall... they took my laptop... then they interrogated me, denied me access to a lawyer. And when they did the interrogation, they have a member of the U.S. Army, on American soil. And they refused to let me go. They ... implied that if I didn’t make a deal with them, that I’d be sexually assaulted in prison.

  3. Within days of arriving in Sweden I became concerned about my safety and security there, in particular because of the pressure being brought to bear on US allies, including Sweden.

  4. I was aware of the publicly stated attempts to track my movements. I used a number of risk minimisation procedures, including relying on the goodwill of friends and their circles for my safety and to protect the confidentiality of my whereabouts and communications.

  5. My contacts in Sweden had arranged for me to stay in two safe houses during the few days I had intended to stay in Sweden. One of the safe houses belonged to a journalist who I knew and another to a Social Democrat party figure unknown to me who had lent her apartment while she was away, or so I had been told. However, because these two original safe houses arranged prior to my arrival became known very soon, I stayed in three additional safe houses between 11 and 20 August 2010.

  6. I travelled to Sweden to put in place a legal strategy to try to protect our publishing servers, some of which were in Sweden. I believed these assets were at risk as a result of the intense

page12image28000 page12image28160 page12image28320 page12image28480 page12image28640 page12image28800 page12image28960 page12image29120 page12image29280 page12image29440

political pressure from the US described above. I met with the Swedish Pirate Party, which was represented at the European Parliament at the time, who agreed to host copies of WikiLeaks servers under their party name in order to further protect our publishing work. I also felt it was best to leave the United Kingdom at that time because the FBI was known to be carrying out operations in connection with the investigation into our publications. I intended to stay in Sweden for less than a week.

  1. My dependency on other people while in Sweden was aggravated when, shortly after my arrival in Stockholm, my personal bank cards were blocked. On 13 August 2010, the WikiLeaks organization's Moneybookers account could no longer be accessed. That same day, I contacted the company, who replied: “following recent publicity and the subsequently (sic) addition of the Wikileaks entity to blacklists in Australia and watch lists in the USA, we have terminated the business relationship”. I requested further information from MoneyBookers on 13 August and 16 August regarding the closure, including which blacklists and watchlists my accounts and/or WikiLeaks' account had been added to, but I was refused this information.

  2. The freezing of WikiLeaks' Moneybookers account was an early example of what in December 2010 would become a concerted extra-judicial global economic blockade against WikiLeaks by US financial service companies, including VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of America, Western Union and American Express. The blockade was the subject of several court actions, a European Commission investigation, a resolution by the European Parliament, and condemnation by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. On 24 April 2013 the Supreme Court of Iceland found the blockade against WikiLeaks to be unlawful.

  3. As a result of being suddenly cut off from personal and organizational funds upon arriving in Sweden, I had to rely on others not only for shelter, but also for food, safety and telephone credit. Unfortunately, I knew very few people in Sweden and those I did were only sporadically in the country.

  4. On 13 August 2010 one of the main Swedish newspapers, Svenska Dagbladet, published an article entitled 'Defence ministry prepared for the next leak', which reported that the Swedish Ministry of Defence had a dedicated group 'preparing for WikiLeaks next publication' and had analysed 76,000 previous publications from WikiLeaks in relation to Swedish troops in Afghanistan.

  5. Five days later, Swedish state television (SVT) published a segment entitled 'We risk United States relationship deteriorating', which argued that the presence of WikiLeaks in Sweden would negatively affect the strategic relationship between Sweden and the United States.

    III. THE PERIOD 14-20 AUGUST 2010

  6. I met “SW” during my visit to Stockholm. The first time I met her was on the morning of 14 August 2010 when she came to a speech I gave on what my work revealed about the war in Afghanistan, in which Sweden has troops under US command. She sat in the front row and

page13image26672 page13image26832 page13image26992 page13image27152 page13image27312 page13image27472 page13image27632 page13image27792 page13image27952

photographed me. She came to the small private lunch after my talk where one of the organizers stated that she was a volunteer for their organization although they would later claim that this was not true. Due to the security threats against me as a result of my work, I was in a precarious situation. I relied on the kindness of strangers and the safety and discretion they were willing to offer me. I was in a foreign northern country, where I did not speak the language. I had no access to cash because the bank cards I was travelling with had been frozen due to the extra-judicial political measures taken by financial service companies against my organization and me (which are well-documented and the subject of extensive litigation).

  1. Prominent “pro-war” personalities were calling for my assassination and capture, and the US administration had stated publicly that my movements were being tracked. "SW" appeared to be sympathetic to my plight and also appeared to be romantically interested in me. She was not close to people I was close to, so it seemed that those who meant me harm would be unlikely to try to find me by monitoring her movements. She said she worked at the National Museum so I asked her to show me, to try to establish her bonafides. At the Museum an IMAX film was playing, where she kissed me and placed my hands on her breasts. She asked whether I was staying with woman “AA”, a Swedish politician, and seemed concerned by it in a manner which I found strange.

  2. At her initiative we met again on the evening of 16 August 2010 and she suggested we go to a hotel in Stockholm. For security reasons, I said I would prefer to go to her house even though it was outside of Stockholm. She then invited me to her home. We went by train and she paid for my ticket since my bank cards had been frozen.

  3. "SW" made it very clear that she wanted to have sexual intercourse with me. I felt concerned about the intensity of “SW”'s interest and I also deeply loved another woman, which played on my mind and left me emotionally distracted. "SW" knew an unusual amount of detail about me, and appeared annoyed with me when I was on my phone searching for news related to the US official government statements against me. I perceived she was irritated when I wasn't giving her my full attention.

  4. I felt there was a risk my location would be revealed and that she might act unpredictably if she believed I was rejecting her. During that night and again in the morning we had consensual sexual intercourse on four or five occasions. Her words, her expressions and her physical reactions made it clear to me that she encouraged and enjoyed our interactions.

  5. I would later discover that she had collected dozens of photos of me in the weeks before we even met. Her recent FLIKR photo account was filled with pages and pages of photos of me and no other person.

  6. In the morning she went out to pick up breakfast for us. After enjoying breakfast together, I left her home on good terms. At no stage when I was with her did she express that I had disrespected her in any way or acted contrary to her wishes other than to not be interested in her enough to pay her attention above my security situation or attempts to sleep. She accompanied me to the train station on her bicycle and we kissed each other goodbye. She asked that I call her so we could see each other again and I said I would. She called the next day or the day after. We made friendly small talk but we were quickly disconnected due to a failing mobile connection. I did not call her back due to problems obtaining telephone credit (as a result of my bank cards being blocked) and the pressing security situation.

  1. I spoke to her next on Friday 20 August, after a Swedish friend said that he had heard that “SW” was at the hospital and that she wanted to talk to me. As I had not called her back, and she had previously gone through considerable effort to attract my attention, I was initially concerned that she may have attempted self-harm in order to force me to pay attention to her. So I called her. She said she was at a hospital and asked me to come down to meet her to test myself for sexually transmitted diseases so she would not have to worry while she was waiting for her own test results (HIV, for instance, needs months to show up).

  2. But I was busy that day attempting to deal with the escalating political and legal threats against me from the Pentagon. I said I couldn't do anything until the next day (a Saturday). She said that it was normal in Sweden to go to the police to get advice about STDs and that if I didn't come down to the hospital she would go to the police to ask whether I could be forced to get tested. I told her I found her mention of police strange and threatening. She stated that she was only concerned about the tests and that it had no concealed meaning. I agreed to take the test out of goodwill and to reassure her, although I told her I could not do it until the following day, Saturday.

  3. We were in agreement and arranged to meet the following day in the nearby park around lunchtime when I would have time to get tested. She said she was fine and seemed at ease.

  4. You can imagine my disbelief when I woke the next morning to the news that I had been arrested in my absence for ”rape” and that police were ”hunting” all over Stockholm for me.

  5. Her behaviour towards me on the night in question and in the morning made it clear that she actively and enthusiastically wanted me to have sex with her. This is also shown by text messages "SW" sent to her friends during the course of the evening I was at her home and during that week, which the Swedish police collected from her phone. Although the prosecutor has fought for years to prevent me, the public and the courts from seeing them, my lawyers were permitted to see them at the police station and were able to note down a number of them, including:

    • —  On 14 August 2010 "SW" sent the following text to a friend: I want him. I want him. Followed by several more of similar content (all referring to me) in the lead-up to the events in question (13:05);

    • —  On 17 August "SW" wrote that we had long foreplay, but nothing happened (01:14); then it got better (05:15);

    • —  On 17 August, after all sex had occurred, “SW” wrote to a friend that it ”turned out all right” other than STD/pregnancy risk (10:29);

    • —  On 20 August "SW", while at the police station, wrote that she “did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange” but that “the police were keen on getting their hands on him” (14:26); and that she was “chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him” because she “only wanted him to take a test” (17:06);

    • —  On 21 August "SW" wrote that she “did not want to accuse” Julian Assange “for anything”, (07:27); and that it was the “police who made up the charges (sic)” (22:25);

    • —  On 23 August "AA" (the other woman whose case was dropped in August 2015) wrote to "SW" that it was important that she went public with her story so that they could form public opinion for their case (06:43);

  • —  On 23 August "SW" wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing (16:02);

  • —  On 26 August "AA" wrote to "SW" that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper (13:38);

  • —  On 28 August "AA" wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid (12:53); and "SW" wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid (15:59);

  1. These text messages clearly show what really happened between "SW" and me. It is clearly consensual sex between adults. The communication between "AA" and "SW" later sadly speaks for itself.

  2. The prosecutor's allegation in the extradition proceeding was reported to be that one of these sexual interactions started the next morning while "SW" was asleep (in the same bed after a night of consensual intercourse) and that when she woke up she consented to the intercourse in question, but for the first few moments was not theoretically capable of consent due to sleep.

  3. This is false. I was certain "SW" was not asleep. I was also certain she expressly consented to unprotected sex before such intercourse started. This is also evidenced by “SW”'s own text messages. For example, my lawyers refer me to the following text message to her friend:

    — 17 August, 08:42 am: JA did not want to use a condom.

  4. Then a day later she explicitly texts her friend that she had not, in fact, been asleep.

    — 18 August, 06:59 am: I was half asleep.

  5. Although the police initially opened an investigation into 'rape' in relation to woman AA, there was no allegation in her testimony that she had been raped. She expressed in her statement to the police that she consented to sex and subsequently tweeted on 22 April in 2013 “I have not been raped”.

  6. The press was immediately and unlawfully informed that there was a warrant for my arrest for what was reported as the “rape of two” women. The prosecutor unlawfully, and without any subsequent explanation or remedy, immediately confirmed to the press that there was a live warrant for my arrest. The prosecutor's breach triggered an avalanche of news reports. Within days there were millions of references online which associated my name with the word 'rape'.

  7. Immediately the police accusations were used to attack WikiLeaks' work and my reputation as its publisher. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates celebrated the news of my 'rape' arrest warrant with a smile, telling reporters that the arrest “sounds like good news to me” . Various twitter accounts officially associated with the Pentagon spread descriptions of me as a “rapist” and a “fugitive”. This slander was then used as a means to attack my organization's reputation.

page16image24208 page16image24368 page16image24528 page16image24688
  1. I canceled my other appointments and remained in Sweden. I gave an interview to the police on 30 August 2010 in relation to the only remaining allegation. The Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues submitted to the Supreme Court of the UK states:

    “On 30th August 2010, the Appellant, who had voluntarily remained in Sweden to cooperate with the investigation, attended for police interview in respect of the ongoing Preliminary Investigation in respect of AA’s report. He answered all questions asked of him.”

  2. I was highly concerned for my personal safety and the safety of WikiLeaks' operations while I remained in Sweden, but I stayed for another five weeks after the 'preliminary investigation' was initiated in order to clear my name and to cooperate with the police investigation. Only after I had obtained an assurance from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that I could leave the jurisdiction did I prepare to leave the country

  3. Less than 24 hours after the warrant for my arrest was issued, the chief prosecutor of Stockholm was appointed to take over the investigation and canceled the arrest warrant, stating “I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape”.

  4. Shortly after prosecutor Marianne Ny had resurrected the “SW” allegation, the head of the Swedish military intelligence service (“MUST”) published an article 'WikiLeaks is a threat to our soldiers'. I became increasingly concerned about Sweden’s close relationship to the US government in military and intelligence matters.

  5. Through the diplomatic cables I also learned of secret, informal arrangements between Sweden and the United States. The cables revealed that Swedish intelligence services have a pattern of lawless conduct where US government interests are concerned. The US diplomatic cables revealed that the Swedish Justice Department had deliberately hidden particular intelligence information exchanges with the United States from the Parliament of Sweden because they believed the exchanges were likely unlawful.

  6. The US diplomatic cables, reports by major human rights organizations, and the UN's own findings made me aware that Sweden had been complicit in torture as a result of its participation in secret CIA renditions from 2001 through to at least 2006 (which I would subsequently reveal). The rendition of the Swedish political refugees Agiza and Alzery resulted in strong condemnation by the UN Committee Against Torture, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others. There is still complete impunity for the officers of the Swedish state involved and their US counterparts. No charges have been laid although the complicity of the Swedish state has been well established in successful civil litigation. I subsequently learned that Sweden was partly implicated in CIA renditions of its own citizens from Djibouti in 2013. My Swedish lawyer Thomas Olsson represents one of the rendered.

  7. Through an intelligence source, I became aware that on 19 August 2010, the Swedish Security Service (SÄPO) had requested information about me from an Australian intelligence organization. The Australian intelligence organization (ASIO) responded to the request with information about me on 21 August 2010.

  8. On 29 November 2010 WikiLeaks commenced publishing Cablegate, 251,287 US State Department diplomatic cables. The classified diplomatic dispatches related to every country

page17image26960 page17image27120 page17image27280 page17image27440 page17image27600 page17image27760

in the world. In terms of content, it was the largest set of classified documents ever to be published.

  1. The next day State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley stated that “we are investigating aggressively” into WikiLeaks and that a State Department “War Room”, which is different from the Pentagon “War Room”, had been set up.

  2. On 30 November 2010, two days after WikiLeaks started publishing Cablegate, Interpol, at the request of Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, issued a Red Notice to 188 countries for my arrest in relation to the Swedish “preliminary investigation” (for which no charges or indictment existed). At the request of the Swedish prosecutor Interpol also made the notice public.

  3. The Swedish prosecutor issued a European Arrest Warrant on 2 December 2010 to the UK which was processed by the UK Serious Organised Crimes Agency (SOCA).

  4. I lost my freedom on 7 December 2010, the day after UK authorities certified the Swedish extradition warrant. I appeared at the police station, having made a prior appointment. I was arrested and placed in solitary confinement in the highest security unit of Wandsworth prison, the CSU.

  5. The day after I was imprisoned, the UK newspaper The Independent reported that US and Swedish officials had entered informal talks regarding my extradition from Sweden to the United States in connection with the US Grand Jury and FBI investigation against WikiLeaks.

  6. After ten days, the UK courts found that I should be released on bail. In response the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny instructed her representatives in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), to appeal to keep me in prison, but the UK courts found her request to be excessive.

  7. I was moved to house arrest after providing UK authorities with £340,000 (nearly half a million dollars) and having an electronic monitoring device fitted to my ankle.

  8. On 13 January 2011 the UK's Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) wrote to Marianne Ny, assuring her “Please do not think that the case is being dealt with as just another extradition request".

  9. I was forced to meet with police for 551 days in a row. I continued publishing regardless.

  10. I applied for asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy on 19 June 2012. The embassy was then surrounded by police at an admitted cost to the UK taxpayer of £12.6 million by October 2015.

  11. On 28 October 2014, the UK Minister of State of Hugo Swire, told Parliament that “if she [Marianne Ny] wishes to travel here to question Mr. Assange in the embassy in London, we would do absolutely everything to facilitate that, indeed, we would actively welcome it.”

  12. On 14 November 2014 I submitted my case to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD).

page18image24424 page18image24584 page18image24744 page18image24904 page18image25064 page18image25224 page18image25384


  1. On 20 November 2014 Sweden's Court of Appeal (Svea) found that the Swedish prosecutor had breached her duty by failing to accept my statement.

  2. On 12 October 2015 the UK announced that it was removing the overt police around the embassy as it was “no longer proportionate”.

  3. On 14 October 2015 London police chief Bernard Hogan-Howe told the Standard that the visible police were being removed from the embassy encirclement as “it seems a disproportionate response” and “we think the public are not necessarily supportive of it.”

  4. Subsequently (6 Feb 2016) the London Times would report that the removal of overt police was also due to “fears that officers of the diplomatic protection group standing guard were thought to resemble jailers” during the UNWGAD determination. However the 12 October statement reveals that the “overt” police had in fact been replaced with a “strengthened” “covert plan”.

  5. On 5 February 2016 UNWGAD found that I have been unlawfully deprived of my liberty since 7 December 2010 as a result of the actions of the Swedish prosecutor.

Answer to subsequent questions:

You have subjected me to six years of unlawful, politicized detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and four and a half years at this embassy. You should have asked me this question six years ago. Your actions in refusing to take my statement for the last six years have been found to be unlawful by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and by the Swedish Court of Appeal. You have been found to have subjected me to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. You have denied me effective legal representation in this process. Despite this, I feel compelled to cooperate even though you are not safeguarding my rights. I refer you to my statement where all these questions were answered. 

“no,” “no,” “no.”...

About suffering they were never wrong, wrote W. H. Auden in the poem “Musée Des Beaux Arts.” 

These lines occurred to me last week when all eyes were focused on the brutal British seizure of Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

No one should have been surprised by this despicable spectacle carried out in the noonday light for all to see, for the British government has not served as America’s jailer for the past seven years for no reason. It doesn’t take x-ray eyes to see that the British and the Moreno government in Ecuador are twin poodles on the American leash. After a phony display of judicial fairness, the British, as required by their American bosses, will dispatch Assange to the United States so he can be further punished for the crime of doing journalism and exposing war crimes.

Assange has suffered mightily for American sins. The Anglo-American torturers know how to squeeze their victims to make old men out of the young. Abu Ghraib was no aberration. The overt is often covert; just a thin skin separates the sadists’ varied methods, but their message is obvious. No one who saw Assange dragged to prison could fail to see what the war-mongers, who hate freedom of the press when it exposes their criminal activities, can do to a man. Nor, however, could one fail to see the spirit of defiance that animates Assange, a man of courageous conscience cowards can’t begin to comprehend.

Bought and sold, compromised and corrupted to their depths, the American, British, and Ecuadorian governments and their media sycophants have no shame or allegiance to law or God, and have never learned that you can imprison, torture, and even kill a person of conscience, but that doing so is a risky business. For even the corpses of those who say “No” keep whispering “No” forevermore.
While the media spotlight was on central London, Auden’s lines kept running through my mind:

About suffering they were never wrong,
The Old Masters, how well they understood
Its human position: how it takes place
While someone else is eating or opening a window or just
Walking dully along


His words transported me from London to a lonely jail cell in Virginia where Chelsea Manning sat brooding. Chelsea hearing the news about Assange. Chelsea realizing that now the screws would be further tightened and her ordeal as a prisoner of conscience would be extended indefinitely. Chelsea summoning all her extraordinary courage to go on saying “No,” “No,” “No.”

Chelsea refusing the 30 pieces of silver that will be continually offered to her, as they have been for almost a decade, and that she has refused in her emphatic refusal to give the Judas kiss to Julian, to whom she is wed in this non-violent campaign to expose the truth about the war criminals.

Auden’s words reminded me not to turn away, to pay attention, to not walk dully along and ignore the lonely suffering of truth-tellers. How can anyone who claims to oppose the American wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc., turn away from defending Manning and Assange, two brave souls who have already spent nearly 15 years combined imprisoned for exposing the war crimes of the American and British governments, crimes committed in our name and therefore our crimes.

Who will have the bad faith to buy the torrent of lies that the propagandists will spew forth about Assange as they wage a media blitz to kill his reputation on the way to disposing of him?

The jackals in government and media, so-called liberals and conservatives, will be sadistically calling for blood as they count their blood money and wipe their lips. Only cowards will join this bleating crowd and refuse to go to that lonely, empty place – that cell of conscience – where the truth resides.

All should remember that Chelsea Manning spent more than seven years in prison under the Obama administration for revealing a video about George W. Bush’s war crimes in Iraq; that Assange had to escape the Obama administration’s clutches by seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy; and that now that Trump is in office, the reimprisonment of Manning and arrest of Assange are perfectly in accord with the evil deeds of his predecessors. These men are titular heads of the warfare state. They follow orders.

Who can sail calmly on and pretend they don’t see the gift of truth and hear the forsaken cries of two lonely caged heroes falling into the sea? Who can fail to defend such voices of freedom?


Read more:



Where is the early Christian spirit of Paul the Apostle, Matthew, Luke and Mark, when you need it to defeat the "evil" Empire? Where are the Teutonic tribes to ransack the modern Rome on the Potomac Sewer? And I don't mean the Ottoman Empire revival, now cleverly contained by the ruthless Wahhabi/Jewish?US alliance... Presently, with the Murdoch' and Soros' scribes writing the gospel, we're screwed....


See toon at top. Read from top.

sweet jesus...

I was sent a humourous Birthday card, depicting Jesus holding his mobile phone; his thought bubble reads: “Twelve followers so far. Sweet!”. As a Catholic, one often thinks of historical parallels and what insights into the Human Condition can be gleaned from old stories – looking for parables? It is Holy Week this week, a rapid 7 days in which Christ goes from the celebrity status of Palm Sunday, through to the Last Supper, Agony in the Garden in which he pleads for this chalice to pass his lips, betrayal by Judas, arraigned before the religious courts, and then delivered to the Romans for their judgement.

When Pilate can find no guilt, the crowds are influenced by temple agents to demand his crucifixion. Christ is duly tormented, humiliated and put to very public and agonising death on the cross, but with his last words, he pleads for his tormentors: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”. Meanwhile his followers go into hiding, terrified that they will be next.

But what has this story got to do with us now? Although the cartoon depiction of Jesus doesn’t look much like Julian Assange, it provoked a thought exercise: imagine being witness to those events 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem. There is something biblical about fleeing into exile for 7 years. One overarching parallel is the dominance of the Roman Empire akin to that of the American influence and the craven subjugation of the British Establishment – and other territories under Roman/American Rule. Many supporters of Assange have already labelled Lenin Moreno as Judas having sold his soul for 30 pieces of silver. (Note to Moreno: it didn’t end well for Judas).

Imagine how the tabloids and MSM would treat Jesus today: “He mixes with lepers and is probably leprous himself”; “What about that long-haired Mary Magdalene who seems overly attentive to his needs?” “His hair looks like he just spent 40 days in the wilderness”. Meanwhile, the alternative media has become the voice in the wilderness, unsettling Herod’s peace of mind.

So the question for me is why did the Jewish authorities influence Roman power (and subvert the democratic vote put by Pilate) to do their dirty work? Why was Jesus, King of the Jews such a threat to the status quo? Was it his antipathy to market place materialism and seeking a kinder world (as expressed in The Beatitudes)? One might ask the same questions behind the persecution of Julian Assange, who is hated for having exposed the war crimes and lies of the ruling classes.


Read more:


We're not the only ones doing the parallelism between these two stories, unless we were the instigators of the inspiration to do so... Who knows... 



Gus is a rabid atheist... and thinks Assange has been sold out by the West for exposing the West's sins... Read from top.

the deafening silence of the world political class...

A whistleblower at the origin of the revelations about tax evasion practices by UBS bank, Stéphanie Gibaud calls to support Julian Assange. And denounces the deafening silence of the world political class.


by Stéphanie Gibaud:

Some meetings mark more than others and few are so upsetting as to tip our lives.

Recognised as the only political prisoner in Europe, Julian Assange is one of the most controversial people in the world. It is probably for this reason that he is an example of resistance at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Everything was written - or almost - on the personality, the childhood, the possible "pranks" of the founder of the WikiLeaks information site and too little was on the content of the revelations made by the journalist and the publication he was leading until last year.

Since its creation in 2006, WikiLeaks has only revealed information of general interest without ever being contradicted as to the veracity of their content and without ever having revealed the identity of the whistleblowers who provide documents, for the most confidential. For more than ten years, Assange and his teams have constantly put at the disposal of every citizen what our governments hide. Their motto is explicit: "We open governments".

Since its creation in 2006, WikiLeaks has only revealed information of general interest without ever being condemned as to the veracity of their content

The amount of information revealed in recent years has really alerted and even alarmed citizens: from the video Collateral Murder testifying to the assassinations perpetrated by US soldiers on civilians in Iraq to the monitoring of Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone, to espionage by the US Security Agency (NSA) of French elites and among these presidents Chirac, Sarkozy and Hollande but also the "Syria files" and other diplomatic cables, the purpose of the site is to give an audience to whistleblowers with the principle of source protection and freedom of expression.

All the information suddenly revealed has contributed to the awakening of international consciousness during this last decade. Criticised by his opponents at the height of the stakes and revelations, the "cyber-dissident" Assange saw the pressures multiply and accelerate. The imprisonment suffered since 2012 in a tiny room of the Embassy of Ecuador in London - where the brave President Rafael Correa offered him refuge - did not seem to be enough, the internet connections and visits to the journalist were removed at beginning of the year 2018, to add to his sentence. The craziest stories then circulated, including that his cat, "Embassy cat", was even trained to spy!


While we have heard in recent years that Assange's health appears to be deteriorating very quickly, UN experts were seconded to London in 2016. Their report established that the extreme punitive circumstances of the Australian's confinement was arbitrary and he had to be immediately released.

Historians will probably remember the deafening silence of the world's political class about this seven-year lockdown. On this sad day of April 11, 2019, everyone who knows Assange was extremely shocked at the premature ageing of his skin when he was taken out of the Ecuadorian Embassy when escorted by British police officers. These images alert us to the unfair and cruel treatment of those who dared to reveal the most hidden state secrets.

Assange's work has always been to inform, to participate in the general interest and to expose the responsibility of those who govern us. Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are at the heart of the text of the preface which I have been honoured with for my last work. He knows better than anyone else about this subject for having been directly targeted by some of his colleagues when it is proven that WikiLeaks is the most rigorous press organ since it only publishes information from its sources.

Like all those who dare to alert, inform, investigate, verify and cross their sources, we, whistleblowers, have suffered the full force of the drifts of our democracies and the cowardice of our leaders. The contempt, the arrogance, the incompetence, the between-ones were our daily life. We gradually discovered that our "elites" would have no limit on the treatment of our files. We became aware of each other that everything was in place so that nothing ever changed. Some whistleblowers found a closed door when they addressed the media: too embarrassing files, files deemed "uninteresting" or "futile".


The whistle-blowers owe much to Assange because he has always shown his team spirit, with the intelligence to wish to gather and federate whistleblowers and investigative journalists, understanding that this is the only way to be able to defend our interests as citizens. While the rights and duties of the Munich Code of Ethics seem to have been forgotten by some professionals, Assange and his teams have proven their ethics and integrity by publishing sourced documents. We can only recognise Assange's courage and determination in the fight for truth and the right to information.

The same causes producing the same effects, each of the whistle-blowers lives a snatch of the cruelty that is inflicted on Assange: the whistle-blower Françoise Nicolas suffered an attempted murder at the French embassy in Benin where she had denounced accounting irregularities. Abandoned by the entire French high administration, she must know better than anyone what is going on behind the doors of an embassy. The Swiss whistle-blower Rudolf Elmer handed Julian Assange DVDs related to offshore accounts of Julius Baer Bank (Cayman Islands agency) at a press conference in London; he suffered reprisals, unbearable stigmatisation and an endless court process in Switzerland for a decade. Chelsea Manning, the American soldier who sent WikiLeaks the video Collateral murder, is again imprisoned in the United States. Refusing to testify against Wikileaks, she shows exemplary courage.

Shame on successive French governments, shame on European democracies who did not want to support or protect Assange, leaving this small country that is Ecuador alone in the face of pressure.

The abandonment of the public authorities of our "ageing democracies" proves that the right to information is in great danger. This is why Assange's release is the business of all French people, starting with all those who practice journalism. The freedom of expression being in our constitution, the French must show the example by meeting everywhere on the territory: the organisation of national marches (even leading to an international march) of citizens claiming the free speech must take place before May 2, when Assange could be extradited to the United States.

As long as Assange is not released, freedom of speech cannot be guaranteed. The resilience, the resistance, the courage of Assange must be worn. Its name must be for everyone the reference in terms of access to information at a time when big data enabled by the digital revolution has replaced mass photocopying of confidential documents.

On July 3, 2015, Julian Assange published an article in the daily Le Monde where he detailed the conditions of his confinement and called on French President François Hollande to welcome him underlining that "France would make a humanitarian gesture". Despite the repeated letters to the Elysée of some supporters of Assange, the answers have never changed. This refusal of President Hollande is at the height of cruelty and cowardice, especially when we know that for seven years, Assange was unable to see his child who lives in France, to avoid additional pressure as well as retaliation for his family.


The isolation and abandonment of Assange are not only shocking but revealing the indifference and cynicism of our "political elites". By his refusal, the president of the "country of the rights of the man" [France] then showed that he did not live up to the values ​​of our country nor the stakes because Julian Assange, by his revelations, took part in the defense of our own interests as French.

The subterfuge today consists in Assange being accused only of hacking, so that the extradition to the United States is authorised by the courts of Great Britain for confinement in the United States that would only last five years. But it is obvious that Assange risks prosecution for espionage and life imprisonment in a high security prison.

In the context of an undeniable democratic divide and the yellow vests movement, where demonstrators denounce a media propaganda, [apathy and plain disengagement] chanting: "Right to protest, right to inform: same fight!", What answers is the French government able to give citizens who want to rethink the system?

President Emmanuel Macron's ambition was to bring the French together. Before the tracking of whistleblowers is reversed and the perpetrators of abuses are quickly tracked down rather than honest citizens, the president would have a courageous action and prove to all that France, the sixth world power, is the country of Liberty, if he organised the unconditional asylum and security of Assange, as from today. Some of us have memories and know that France has shamefully welcomed and protected the Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier who, since 1986, was able to move freely for 25 years on our territory.

In a country in search of meaning, many of us ask ourselves the question of what kind of society do we want to leave to our children: is it a world of lies, useless wars, corruption to the detriment of all of us?

Let's stand up for freedom of expression, for transparency, for our democracies! Let's all be #jesuisAssange to live up to the values ​​we represent! Then France will mark history again with its humanism and freedom of expression.

The opinions, assertions and views expressed in this section are those of the author and cannot be attributed to RT.


Translation by Jules Letambour


Read more:



Read from top

the most expensive bounty to catch a man...

In late February, Ecuador has reached a $4.2 billion staff-level financing deal with the IMF to keep its struggling economy afloat. 

Less than two months later, Ecuador’s president Lenin Moreno revoked Assange’s political asylum.


This would have to be the most expensive bounty ever placed on someone sought by the USA. Even Bin Laden was only worth a few piddly pigs...





release chelsea!...

Whistleblower and former US Army analyst Chelsea Manning’s attorney filed a new motion for her to be released from jail on the grounds that “as she will never be convinced to cooperate with the grand jury, further confinement serves no lawful purpose and must be terminated.” It’s the second such request filed since her March 5 imprisonment.

Moira Meltzer-Cohen, Manning's attorney, filed a new motion in an Alexandria, Virginia, court on Monday seeking her client's release. Manning has been jailed since March 5, when she refused to testify before a federal grand jury as part of its investigation into the document publishing website WikiLeaks. When Manning made public the US Army and US state documents she stole in 2009, which exposed US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, she did so using the website, which was founded by Julian Assange.


Read more:




Read from top.

there is great evil being perpetrated by washington...

By proceeding against Julian Assange, America will dig its own grave


by Karen Kwiatkowski*

There is great evil being perpetrated by Washington D.C. here and around the world.
A persistent terrible hate for life, liberty and humanity arrived on little cat feet and has taken over our country.  This did not begin with Trump, but sadly it also is not going to end with him either.

Trump promised to drain the swamp, implying change, transparency and accountability.
Instead he brought in neoconservative king-makers and warmongers, and allowed their influence to grow disproportionately, while his co-dependents in the other party facilitate the agenda of death.

The criminal pursuit and indictment of Wikileak founder, Julian Assange is the proof in the pudding. The 40 page criminal complaint contains a lot of detail but not much crime.1 In fact, the “crimes” are more like descriptions of how journalism is done in the information age, if it is true that the job of journalism is to tell the stories, name the names, and state the facts that governments don’t want told, named or stated.  
In a normal world, none of this is worth much energy or attention. There is very little legally here to work with, and success so far on the part of the US Government has been solely via a reliable judge in the Eastern District Court of Virginia, and other people’s money and other people’s governments, beholden or paid by the US.

But in the world that exists today, we see these overblown aggressive tactics and we can feel the excitement, the goosebumps and the hot necks of the FBI and CIA suits as they make their bones.
Chelsea Manning is back in prison, ordered back into solitary.2 She is not the person she was after years of torture, isolation and chemical interrogation.  Ironically, her cognitive function as a result of her previous treatment is likely to render any future interrogation useless in court, legally and practically.  She received the “José Padilla treatment”3, albeit refined by some years of USG practice.  Her resultant mental malleability may have produced the ideal Soviet Amerikan Woman [sic].

The US appears to be a nation of laws, and yet, we absolutely are not.  One of many lessons and perspectives we gain from the study of Julian Assange is just that.  US political influence and debt-funded largesse resulted in Assange’s ejection from the Ecuadorian Embassy into the UK prison for terrorists in Belmarsh. US domestic corruption and misreading of the Constitution produced his indictment.
Furthermore, US government employees, from the DoD, FBI and the CIA have been interviewing Assange in Belmarsh Prison, prior to any extradition decision.

Interviewing is the wrong word.  I’d like to say doctoring him, because it would be more accurate, except that word implies some care for a positive outcome.  Chemical Gina4 has her hands in this one, and we are being told that Assange is being “treated” with 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, known as BZ.5 What BZ does, from the New Yorker:

“Exposed soldiers exhibited bizarre symptoms: rapid mumbling, or picking obsessively at bedclothes and other objects, real or imaginary. ‘…The drug’s effect lasted for days. At its peak, volunteers were totally cut off in their own minds, jolting from one fragmented existence to the next. They saw visions: Lilliputian baseball players competing on a tabletop diamond; animals or people or objects that materialized and vanished. ….
Soldiers on BZ could remember only fragments of the experience afterward. As the drug wore off, and the subjects had trouble discerning what was real, many experienced anxiety, aggression, even terror. Ketchum [Dr. James Ketchum, DoD Edgewood Arsenal, MD] built padded cells to prevent injuries, but at times the subjects couldn’t be contained. One escaped, running from imagined murderers. Another, on a drug similar to BZ, saw ‘bugs, worms, one snake, a monkey and numerous rats,’ and thought his skin was covered in blood. ‘Subject broke a wooden chair and smashed a hole in the wall after tearing down a 4-by-7-ft panel of padding,’ his chart noted. Ketchum and three assistants piled on top of the soldier to subdue him. ‘He was clearly terrified and convinced we were intending to kill him,’ his chart said.
One night, Ketchum rushed into a padded room to reassure a young African-American volunteer wrestling with the ebbing effects of BZ. The soldier, agitated, found the air-conditioner gravely threatening. After calming him down, Ketchum sat beside him. Attempting to see if he could hold a conversation, Ketchum asked, ‘Why do they have taxes, income taxes, things like that?’
The soldier thought for a minute. ‘You see, that would be difficult for me to answer, because I don’t like rice,’ he said.”6


BZ is an interesting drug7, certainly not the only one used by the US government, but one of them.
Why give it to Assange?  What do they want from him?  Is it truth they seek, or more information, or is this whole farce something more like obsessive retaliatory rage at feeling powerless, as the world laughed at US State department memorandums and became angry at the idiocy and hate demonstrated by US soldiers 15 years ago.8 Or maybe something more sinister – that they need Julian Assange psychologically and physically drawn and quartered because he revealed state corruption and weakness?   Is it because to the state this is the war, the real war it always fights, a war with the rest of the population for its very survival? Or is Ray McGovern on to the real reason the deep state wants to destroy him?9

It is difficult to know if the state is more sociopathic or more psychopathic.  What US government employees and/or contractors are currently doing to Julian Assange, and those who may have used Wikileaks as a journalistic avenue, may indicate it is the latter.  Torture, isolation, brutality, and the use of psychotropic drugs during interrogations and hiding this from the defendant’s own lawyers by denying them access – this is Lubyanka10 in the 1950s, not London and DC in 2019.

Allow me to get to the point.  The latest word I have received from England is as follows:

“[Julian Assange] is presently under close observation in prison hospital because he has suffere
d ‘severe transient psychotic episodes.’ My source(s) indicate these episodes occurred after two sessions of coercive interrogation at the hands of UK and US officials. The source(s) stated the HUMINT interrogators used psychotropic drugs in the course of the sessions.” [HUMINT: Human Intelligence, intelligence gathered by means of interpersonal contact]

There are no words.  Nothing can be said.  2 plus 2 does equal 5.  The FBI is our own special Cheka.  The CIA Director’s hands are wet and her organisation does not serve American values.  Rather than choosing to stay secretive for national security, the modern CIA must stay secretive in order to survive, because it has become functionally illegal.  Our president, who puts America first, is putting American values last, even as he tweets his concern for freedom of speech.11

The agenda is to destroy Assange as a human being, and they may well succeed.  In doing this evil deed, in all of our names, America herself – whether we put her first, last, or somewhere in the middle – will have dug her own grave. 


Copyright © 2019 Karen Kwiatkowski, 7 May 2019

*    Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born 24 September 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel. She received an MA in Government from Harvard University and an MS in Science Management from the University of Alaska. She has a PhD in World Politics from The Catholic University of America in Washington DC; 

She began her military career in 1982 in Alaska, she also served in Spain and Italy. Kwiatkowski was then assigned to the National Security Agency (NSA), eventually becoming a speechwriter for the agency’s director. In 1998 she became an analyst for the Pentagon, first on sub-Saharan Africa policy, from 2002 to 2003 she served in the Pentagon’s Near East and South Asia directorate (NESA). 

There she witnessed how, under the influence of the Neocons, the Office for Special Plans within NESA worked to produce the justifications for the Iraq war by twisting and censoring information. Since she did not want to support this, she resigned in 2003. Her disclosures have been confirmed by other intelligence officials. This is because, as she told journalists of "Die Zeit“, she "wants as many people as possible to understand how vulnerable democracy is“. 

Karen Kwiatkowski is a founding member of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Today she lives with her family on a farm in Virginia. In addition to her work on the farm, she also works as an author and part-time professor.




Read from top.

slow-mo torture...

What is happening to Julian Assange is nothing short of torture and a denial of his human rights, says Dr John Jiggens.

FOR THE PAST five years I’ve been reporting on what Catholic Worker and Assange supporter Ciaron O’Reilly refers to as the ‘slow-motion crucifixion of Julian Assange’.

My first interview in 2014 was with Assange’s father, John Shipton, on the second anniversary of his flight to the Ecuadorian Embassy. Julian’s birthday was approaching and Shipton was organising a care package for his son. The package included a cat, to give Julian companionship in the isolation of his closely-guarded diplomatic sanctuary.


Read more:


Read from top.