☆ Chronology

Chronology

Original prepared by DeLorean https://www.flashback.org/sp25460511

People and web addresses:

JA - Julian Assange. Founder of WikiLeaks http://wikileaks.org

AA - One of the women accusing JA. Spokeswoman for "Broderskapsrörelsen" ("The Brotherhood Movement" which is the Christian wing of the Social Democratic Party) AA's cousin Mattias is Lt Colonel with the Swedish peace keeping forces in Afghanistan. http://ardin.se http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/broderskap

SW - The second woman accusing JA. Lives in the town of Enköping, 50 miles north west of Stockholm. Since all police reports about her are classified, the identity of this woman has not been 100% verified.

MHK - Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, duty prosecutor in Stockholm City. Her husband works as a legal expert to Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask.

EF - Eva Finné, Chief Prosecutor.

CB - Claes Borgström. Legal representative of AA och SW.

LS - Leif Silbersky. Legal representative of JA until Sep 7.

BH - Björn Hurtig. Legal representative of JA from Sep 7.

MN - Marianne Ny. Head of the Public Prosecutor's Office; Development Unit in Gothenburg. Handles the appeal from CB.

Prosecutors office: http://www.aklagare.se (some statements regarding JA are in English).

Background:

JA is on a longer stay in Sweden for various reasons. Among other things, he will speak at a "Brotherhood" seminar. AA handles JAs invitation and is in contact with JA before the visit. It is generally believed that JA spends his first nights in AAs apartment in Stockholm. (Fri, Aug 13 - Mon, Aug 16?). Probably even Wed night, Aug 17 - Friday, Aug 19. AA is probably working outside of Stockholm some of these days.

Friday Aug 13:

During this night (or maybe during the night between Saturday and Sunday), the incident that makes AA report JA to the police, occurs.

Saturday, Aug 14:

- JA delivers his speech at the Brotherhood seminar. SW acts as a photographer during the seminar although it seems as she has not been invited as a photographer. SW manages to get invited to the lunch (with JA) held after the seminar.

- JA och SW hang out in the afternoon.

- Crayfish party in the home of AA in the evening. Participants:

AA
JA
Possibly: Pirate Party member 1 (The Pirate Party is a small, Swedish Political Party).
Possibly: Pirate Party member 2
Possibly journalist 1
Possibly journalist 2
Perhaps a few more people.

Monday, Aug 16:

JA travels by train with SW to Enköping and stays the night in her home. During the night or in the morning, the incident that makes SW report JA to the police, occurs.

Wednesday, Aug 18:

AA and SW - who have not met before according to their own statements - get in touch during the day (or maybe during Thu, Aug 19). Then the following happens:

Friday, Aug 20:

- During the afternoon (possibly around 2 p.m.) AA and SW enter the Klara Police Station in central Stockholm to discuss some things they say they have experienced while being with JA.
- The police officer handling the case creates one report concerning rape involving SW and one concerning molestation (which is not necessarily a sexually related crime in Sweden) involving AA..
- Rumours say that AA claims that JA intentionally broke a condom. (Later, JA denies this while being interrogated by the police).
- MHK decides to arrest JA in his absence for one count of rape and one count of sexual molestation.
- Within hours, someone leaks information about MHKs decision (including JAs name) to tabloid "Expressen".
- Against good practice, MHK confirms the story when a reporter from Expressen calls her. Her excuse seems to be that she got the impression that Expressen already knew all the details, and thus, she might just as well confirm(!).
- Within 24 hours, the story is in the media all over the world.
- The soruce/leak is still unidentified.
- Perhaps SW takes a test for some diseases.

Saturday, Aug 21:

- Chief prosecutor EF cancels the arrest warrant for JA. Says EF: "I do not believe that there is any reason so suspect him of rape". The report on molestation remains, but it is now unclear whether it is considered sexual or not.
- http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter...-sin-franvaro/

Tuesday, Aug 24:
- Attorney Claes Borgström (CB) is suggested as legal representative of AA and SW.
- Attorney Leif Silbersky (LS) is suggested as legal representative of JA.
- At http://rebellabloggen.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/Wikileakshjaltar-kan-ocksa-gora-puckade-saker/ (a blog for young feminists from the social democratic party) blogger Sara Gunnerud publishes what seems to be AAs version of what happened. It gives the impression that JA has had unsafe sex against AAs will. And that AA and SW went to the police to find out if it possible to force JA to take a test för sexually transferred diseases (STD). Sara Gunnerud also gives a negative description of JAs attitude towards women. But she gives praise to WikiLeaks.

Wendesday, Aug 25:

- EF issues a statement where she announces that a preliminary investigation concerning one count of molestation (the word "sexual" is not mentioned) will be opened.
- As to the rape charges, EF says that she does not question the information delivered by SW, but that this information is such that there is no suspicion of rape at hand. Link: http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Beslut-i-Assangearendet-onsdag/
- In conversation with LS, JA says that he is completely innocent both from a legal point of view and from a moral one. He also adds that he has already suffered "enormous damage" from what has occurred.

Friday, Aug 27:

- Just before Swedish authorities close their offices for the weekend, CB delivers an appeal of EFs decision. CB now requests that JA be charged with two counts of rape, one against AA and one against SW.

Sunday, Aug 29 - Tuesday, Aug 31:

- According to Swedish newspaper Resumé, the first hint to tabloid Expressen came by SMS from a source which is yet to be identified. The SMS was delivered to free lance photographer Stefan Söderström who was at the governmental residence of Harpsund for a gathering with the Swedish government. Also at Harpsund was political journalist Niklas Svensson who works for Expressen. Svensson informs Expressen reporter Diamant Salihu, who digs up more information by contacting at least one other source. Then he calls duty prosecutor MHK who, inexplicably, confirms the fact that JA is arrested in his absence.
- According to a stubborn rumour from several sources, the incident between SW and JA should be that they had unsafe sex. It is not known whether, or in which way, safe sex had been agreed upon between the parties.

Monday, Aug 30:

-JA is interrogated about the molestation charge against AA (but not about the rape charges). The charge seems to be that JA deliberately made a hole in a condom. JA denies doing so. Expressen publishes parts of the interrogation: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.2118961/har-ar-forhoret-med-assange-ord-for-ord

Wednesday, Sep 1:

- The case has now been handed over to the Public Prosecutor's Office's "Development Unit" in Gothenburg, where the head of the department, Chief Prescutor Marianne Ny (MN) decides to reopen the preliminary investigation of one count of rape (against SW) and that the preliminary investigation of one count of molestation (against AA) is to be reopened and expanded to include "all events" in the police report.
http://www.aklagare.se/media/nyheter/overprovningsbeslut-i-assangearendet/

Friday, Sep 3:

- SW is interrogated a second time about the alleged rape.
- MN and her assistant prosecutor go through all existing material

Monday, Sep 6:

- JA requests that his legal representative LS be replaced by attorney Björn Hurtig (BH).

Tusesday, Sep 7:

- JA is granted the switch from LS to BH.

Saturday, Sep 11:

In an interview in the legal newspaper "Dagens Juridik" (a low profile newspaper for the legal community), BH says that his client has received a very unfair treatment from the authorities and that he will surely demand compensation from the state. http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2010/09/hurtig-assange-kommer-vilja-krava-kompensation-av-staten

2010-08-17 Swedish Pirate Party to Host New WikiLeaks Servers

The Pirate Party provide bandwidth and hosting free of charge.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100817,00.shtml

2010-08-21 Twelve Hours That Shook the World

Julian Assange charged with rape, then charges suddenly dropped.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100821,00.shtml

2010-08-22 The Campaign Against Julian Assange

Further developments.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100822,00.shtml

2010-08-23 Julian Assange & Anna Ardin

The person behind the police complaint identified.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100823,00.shtml

2010-08-24 Assange Case: 'Legal corruption, one of the worst I've seen'

Sweden's most famous lawyer speaks out.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100824,00.shtml

2010-08-24 Assange Hung Out on a Phone Call?

The case gets murkier and dirtier by the day.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20100824,00.shtml

2010-08-24 Charges Filed Against Prosecutor in Assange Case

Violated secrecy laws in revealing details to the media.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100824,01.shtml

2010-08-25 Assange/WikiLeaks: Prosecutor Reaches Decision

This is when things start to get dirty.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100825,00.shtml

2010-08-29 WikiLeaks Errata

Pause for the cause. A look at the media hysteria surrounding the Assange affair.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20100829,00.shtml

2010-09-02 Assange Affair: Prosecutors Leak to Media Again

After giving their solemn promise. US military blog smells rat in second woman's story.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100902,00.shtml

2010-09-05 Assange/CIA: A Gift of Coincidence

The luck of Langley? You couldn't make this up.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20100905,00.shtml

2010-09-05 Assange/CIA: The Smear Campaign

Stay on track. Don't be naïve. And don't be silent.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20100905,01.shtml

2010-09-06 Assange Affair: So Proud, So Proud

The media in Sweden are trying to convince their sheeple that everything's OK and the staggeringly arrogant Lena Sundström is going to teach them how. 'What to think about the Assange case? Try to not think about it!'
http://rixstep.com/1/1/20100906,00.shtml

2010-09-07 Assange Gets New Counsel

Now it's up to fashionable hyper-expensive television star Björn Hurtig. Can he be proactive? Can any Swedish solicitor?
http://rixstep.com/1/20100907,00.shtml

2010-09-08 Assange & the 'Jackal Media': Washington Post

People truly have a lot to fear.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100908,00.shtml

2010-09-08 Chancellor to Hunt Down Leak of Assange Dossier

Swedish police IAD file complaint against their own.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100908,01.shtml

2010-09-09 Assange Case Should Set Off Alarms

Don't fundamental civil rights apply? By SvD's Carin Stenström.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20100909,00.shtml

2010-09-10 Assange Affair: Helin Calls Internal Affairs 'Kling & Klang'

Authorities sound the alarm after 'steal' of confidential Assange case dossier but Aftonbladet's editor in chief insists all is above board. Too many things are leaking in praiseworthy Stockholm.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100910,00.shtml

2010-09-14 Assange: Aftonbladet's 'Inside Story'

A timeline including excerpts of case testimony. The Stockholm sleaze rag somehow got a copy of the actual case dossier. They claim it was legal; the authorities aren't convinced.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100914,00.shtml

2010-09-14 Geoffrey Robertson: 'We should stand up for Assange'

Sweden in violation of European civil rights. The world-famous solicitor calls for diplomatic 'carpet bombing' of Swedish authorities.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100914,01.shtml

2010-09-16 Assange: Ingrid Carlqvist Speaks Out

The famous author on Sweden's crazy treatment of rape accusations. From 23 August.
http://rixstep.com/1/1/20100916,00.shtml

2010-09-17 Assange: On the CounterPunch

Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett level off on the lot.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100917,01.shtml

2010-09-17 Julian Assange & Anders Perklev

Meet Sweden's prosecutor general. Force yourself.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100917,00.shtml

2010-09-18 Assange: Go Where You Wanna Go?

Something's happened in the Assange case? Actually nothing happened but it took nearly a month for the Swedes to admit it.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100918,00.shtml

2010-09-19 Assange: Decisions Can Wait

Saving face and saving careers in Sweden's public offices.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20100919,01.shtml

2010-09-19 Julian Assange & Claes Borgström

Peering down a rabbit hole.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20100919,00.shtml

2010-09-22 Assange & The Media: Crumbs

Welcome to the feast. Fill up.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100922,00.shtml

2010-09-25 Assange/WikiLeaks: Face Value

The one thing you may never take it at.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20100925,00.shtml

2010-09-25 Schmitt Leaves WikiLeaks?

Dissension in the ranks?
http://rixstep.com/1/20100925,00.shtml

2010-09-27 Schmitt Suspended from WikiLeaks

On the second part of the Der Spiegel interview. All things considered, and taking new revelations in the German media into account, it looks like Herr Domscheit might have been a plant. He certainly did all he could to stop the release of the Iraq War Logs. And when found out and questioned, ran straight into the arms of the enemy.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100927,00.shtml

2010-09-29 Assange & Sweden: Update 2010-09-29

News in the ongoing case now into its 41st day.
http://rixstep.com/1/20100929,00.shtml

2010-10-01 'They're Casting Spells on Me'

Anna Ardin's goose is cooked. She's consequently planning on leaving the country for three months.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20101001,01.shtml

2010-10-01 Assange Case: Evidence Destroyed Over and Over Again

Sensational news: extraordinary Internet detective work by Göran Rudling. Anna Ardin trying to wipe her tracks and caught in a trap. From 30 September 2010.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml

2010-10-05 Assange Back in Stockholm

'Meet me in Stockholm baby so we can mess around.'
http://rixstep.com/1/20101005,00.shtml

2010-10-08 Sex & Sweden

What Julian Assange has been up against. 'Citizen X' is one of Sweden's best bloggers and news researchers. He recently covered the 'sex torture' case. The story gives insight into how Sweden has changed and what visitors like Julian Assange are up against when crossing the border.
http://radsoft.net/rants/20101008,00.shtml

2010-10-14 Assange's MBP Stolen?

So claims Stefan Lindgren who was to meet Julian that week in Stockholm. And it turned out to be three (3) stolen laptops: Julian flew from Stockholm to Berlin, was the only passenger to check in luggage, and of course the case was gone on arrival.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101014,00.shtml

2010-10-14 Pentagon Blocking WikiLeaks Funding

Another centre of gravity? Didn't work too good. Oh well.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101014,01.shtml

2010-10-18 'I Regret That!'

How a Swedish tabloid journalist got the Assange story and how he ran with it. A startling look at the yesterday media and the way tabloid journalists work.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20101018,00.shtml

2010-10-23 Atika Shubert

Graduate cum laude from the Kay Burley School of Journalism. This clip is being blocked in the US; Rixstep have the entire clip for download; ask in the forum for a copy.
http://rixstep.com/1/1/0/20101023,00.shtml

2010-10-24 Helin's Legacy

Julian Assange once wanted to collaborate with the editor in chief of the Stockholm tabloid Aftonbladet.
http://rixstep.com/1/1/20101024,00.shtml

2010-11-04 WikiLeaks: Enemy Action?

What would Auric Goldfinger say? What would the CIA say? A look at a few remarkable things about Sweden's prosecution authority.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101104,00.shtml

2010-11-05 F-2011-00078

Transcript of the CIA refusal to reveal plans to assassinate Julian Assange under the FOIA.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101105,00.shtml

2010-11-08 Assange/WikiLeaks: The Betrayal of Sweden's Cultural Elite

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be summoned to Stockholm for further interrogations in the next few days. If he doesn't turn up, he'll be sought internationally, according to informed sources. Not because he is guilty of rape - if he was, then half of Sweden's male population would be behind bars - but because he's to be destroyed.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20101108,00.shtml

2010-11-14 Once Upon a Time in Sweden - A Selection

Here are some English language articles covering the rape allegations made against Julian Assange in Sweden in August 2010. In a legal case that can only be described as a quagmire, (if not Kafkaesque), the media's coverage of it has accordingly been confused and confusing in equal measure. Not surprisingly, the most coherent and least sensationalist analysis has come from bloggers rather than MSM reporters.

David Leigh of The Guardian on August 22: "Allegation apparently leaked to press by police" http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/22/WikiLeaks-julian-assange-sweden

Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine on August 23 correctly advised that those following the story should accept nothing at face value.
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/08/hbc-90007522

Angella Johnson of the Daily Mail on August 29, with the first story to feature interviews with the two women making the allegations against Assange.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307137/Supporters-dis...

Guy Rundle of Crikey provides a lucid take on the quagmire on September 9, reporting that Birgitta Jónsdóttir's comments about Assange's character were misrepresented in a particularly slanderous Daily Beast article.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/09/rundle-WikiLeaks-i-havent-seen-accus...

Kelley Vlahos of Antiwar.com provides further media criticism, with links to reasoned analysis from James Fallows at Atlantic, blogger Fabius Maximus, and anti-WikiLeaks maniacs such as Jonah Goldberg:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/09/02/fallows-others-taking-another-loo...

At this point a discerning reader may notice a common caveat running through many blog posts on the subject of Assange's rape allegations: Try not to believe anything for now, for there is no objective reality.

Then of course we have some examples of yellow journalism, 2.0.
Step 1: Facebook-stalk Julian Assange's son Daniel;
Step 2: Use content from his FB page without permission;
Step 3. Publish his comments as bona fide source material

Guess who? News Limited - "We Report, You Swallow".
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/my_wiki_dad_just_awful_with_t...

Read Daniel Assange's wry rebuttal and corrections here:
http://www.lemma.org/?p=192

Undeterred by the fact that such an article had appeared in the sleazy NY Post, Fairfax journos chirped their own excerpts from the same non-story. In this case, Asher Moses of the Sydney Morning Herald (who should know better, as the ACMA blacklist WikiLeaks released provided him with lots of bread & butter for many months) published the same poison here:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/WikiLeaks-sex-scandal-d...

2010-11-18 Assange Arrested Again

STOCKHOLM (Rixstep) — Julian Assange is to be arrested in absentia, for questioning, despite repeated attempts by Assange to meet with Marianne Ny who has categorically refused to negotiate any other way.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101118,01.shtml

2010-11-18 Assange to Appeal

STOCKHOLM (Rixstep) — Julian Assange will appeal the bizarre arrest order proposed by invisible prosecutor Marianne Ny yesterday through more visible proxies at the district court in Stockholm.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101118,02.shtml

2010-11-18 Ny Wants Assange

STOCKHOLM (Rixstep) — The long stone-turning gestation period is over. Elusive Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny now says she wants to meet with Julian Assange to discuss rape charges and she's willing to get an international arrest order to do it.

'That's a bit thin', says solicitor Björn Hurtig.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101118,00.shtml

2010-11-18 WikiLeaks staff editorial: Why our editor-in-chief is busy and needs to be defended

Thursday November 18, 2010

STAFF EDITORIAL (via @wikileaks)

In October 2010 Julian Assange won the Sam Adams Award for Integrity. He has also been awarded the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award and the Economist Index on Censorship Award in 2008. It is important to remember that accolades such as these do come without tremendous hard work.

The expose of the Afghan War Diaries was a moment of media history, orchestrated by Julian Assange. He brought together The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, three of the world’s most reputable newspapers to collaborate with WikiLeaks on exposing more than 90 000 secret significant action reports by the United States relating to the war in Afghanistan. This involved a huge amount of administration in order to co-ordinate all four media partners’ publishing schedules and a lot of time to carefully construct the levels of trust needed to bring together three major newspapers who were also competitors.

Since 2007 Julian, WikiLeaks and the Sunshine Press have been behind international front page stories that have changed the world. However, every story exposing abuses by powerful organizations, whether they be from New York or Nairobi results in a counter attack. Such the importance and veracity of revelations must be defended. Immediately after the Afghan War Diaries he conducted seventy-six interviews in three days maximizing the impact of the disclosures. It is very important for WikiLeaks to create a global platform with which to reach all corners of the earth. This demonstrates to those who wish to expose wrongdoing and misconduct that there is a way to do so without putting themselves at risk. He remains a messenger who big governments and their agencies can, and constantly do, attack while all the time keeping the source of the information published safe.

Because of the nature of the work performed by WikiLeaks both the organization and Julian Assange are constantly under attack. Their servers are under attack. Their security is under attack and their work resources and finances are under attack. This results is a lot of time-consuming administration and means working through a lot of bureaucratic steps to re-establish the efficient running of an organisation. When finances are frozen, as was the case with Money Brokers Limited in August this year (the WikiLeaks account was closed because of "watchlisting" by the US after publication of the Afghanistan documents) it resulted in many letters back and forth, instructing a legal team to administer the situation and still to date there has been no resolution. In just the last 14 days he has met with more than 9 lawyers (excluding Swedish lawyers) in in defense of WikiLeaks’ publishing activities, agreements and sources. Similarly, Julian Assange is subject to these sorts of attacks on a personal level.

He and WikiLeaks both have been attacked in the media by Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and highest ranking officer in the US and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates not to mention the well recognized media personalities such as Marc A. Thiessen, a former bush administration chief speech writer and currently a Washington Post columnist who wrote “Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him.” Christian Whiton, a Fox News contributor, said “WikiLeaks should be declared 'enemy combatants',” indicating they should be dealt with outside the law and Jonah Goldberg, a conservative syndicated columnist asked “why wasn’t Julian Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago?”

Attacks such as these create an extreme need for security and he must always be conscious and personally vigilant – a task that is both time consuming and mentally exhausting. The major government players such as the CIA and the Pentagon do not stop at just Julian but also target many WikiLeaks volunteers or associates. Two volunteers and an American WikiLeaks spokesperson have been detained and questioned in the United States along with other individuals alleged to be participant to his publishing activities such as Bradley Manning, an alleged source who is being held as a political prisoner in the United States. Mr Manning's mother's house in Wales was raided by the FBI together with local police earlier this year.

The result is a constant need for legal and political support and managing this from afar and throughout many continents is no small task. Furthermore Julian Assange does not take these matters lightly having been privy to bad experiences in the past – while working on the extra judicial assassinations taking place in Kenya, two WikiLeaks’ affiliates being assassinated.

Since the false allegations made about him in Sweden this August Julian has also needed to work extremely hard at ensuring the smear campaign launched against him has not affected the WikiLeaks brand. Making many public appearances and conducting interviews is absolutely necessary not to mention maintaining relationships with media partners who are so easily affected by such events.

In spite of the attacks against him, Wikileaks successfully released the Iraq War Logs in late October – a cache of over 400 000 US military intelligence reports relating to the war in Iraq. Due to the false allegations mentioned above the management of this leak was extremely difficult. However, he successfully made new lasting relationships and expanded the media partners to include Al Jazeera, Le Monde, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, SVT and also brought in Public Interest Lawyers and NGOs such as Iraq Body Count. The documents’ release was increased to television as well as print media with two full-length documentaries being commissioned.

Julian Assange also readily offers to speak at many public events; especially those he feels will have a resonating effect on people’s rights and liberties, ideals he holds close to his heart. Recently he presented at the United Nations Universal Periodic Review against the United States in Geneva where he offered up evidence from the Iraq War logs of the human right abuses such as the 109 000 deaths, 185 000 casualties, 66 000 civilian deaths and countless cases of torture conducted by America. The speech he gave lasted over two hours alone and the preparation for such an event is mammoth. During his stay in Geneva the Swiss government was so fearful for his personal security that they offered two International Police and two Swiss Police as his bodyguards for the duration, yet another indication of the severity of the danger he encounters on a daily basis. In late September he spoke in London for Index on Censorship regarding Security and censorship in the age of WikiLeaks.

In the coming months Julian Assange aims to carry on the invaluable work and service that WikiLeaks offers the public. In due course he intends on providing information, as yet publically unknown. He has stifled many illegal attacks and remains victorious on all legal attacks against WikiLeaks.

Original source: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/71lm5i

2010-11-19 A Simple Swedish Factoid Collection

For international consumption and amusement. Perhaps only the first of perhaps many. There are many lolz in what use to be such a great country.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101119,00.shtml

2010-11-19 Ny: 'I Don't Want to Discuss It'

STOCKHOLM (Rixstep) — Swedish national television SVT sent reporters to the Stockholm district court and to Isengard to follow the events and interview Marianne Ny. This resulted in a two minute two second spot on the evening news. The link is below. In the interests of truth, justice, and liberty, a full transcript is provided in case the clip suddenly disappears.

Watch (read) towards the end how Saruman Ny does a two-step past the crucial question. The stench is overwhelming.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101119,02.shtml

2010-11-19 Tired of Feminists with Double Morals

Malin Otterström won't be apologising to Anna Ardin.
http://rixstep.com/1/20101119,01.shtml

2010-12-02 Sweden case: The lawyers speak up II

London-based lawyer Mark Stephens spoke with The Guardian:

"Comparing the Swedish prosecutor to Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria, Stalin's notorious security chief, Mark Stephens said "neither Mr Assange nor his lawyers have been provided any further information beyond that reported in the press."

He continued: "This appears to be a persecution and a prosecution. It is highly irregular and unusual for the Swedish authorities to issue a red notice in the teeth of the undisputed fact that Mr Assange has agreed to meet voluntarily to answer the prosecutor's questions. Mr Assange has repeatedly sought meetings with the prosecutrix – both in Sweden and subsequently – in order to answer her questions and clear his name. It is relevant that Mr Assange sought permission from the prosecutrix to leave Sweden and she gave him her permission. Since leaving Sweden Mr Assange has continued to seek meetings with the prosecutrix, but his requests have either been ignored or met with a refusal."

He added: "At this point in time, we have no evidence pointing to a link between these allegations from August and the issue of the Interpol alert just two days after the WikiLeaks first release of US diplomatic cables. However, it is highly unusual for a red notice warrant to be issued in relation to the allegations reported as having been made, since Swedish law does not require custodial orders in relation to the allegation – indeed to our knowledge this is a unique action by the Swedish prosecuting authorities in applying for a red notice on the basis of these allegations.

"We are also investigating whether the prosecutor's application to have Mr Assange held incommunicado without access to lawyers, visitors or other prisoners – again a unique request – is in any way linked to this matter and the recent, rather bellicose US statements of an intention to prosecute Mr Assange."

The Guardian also refers to Stephens's statements to The Times arguing that the arrest warrant issued was invalid:

"The arrest warrant has been issued in circumstances where Assange has an outstanding appeal in Sweden," Stephens said in the Times, while a police source was quoted as saying Assange's warrant was "not a properly certified warrant so we can't act on it."

Stephens argued that although Assange was originally wanted on a charge of rape, this had been thrown out after a partially successful appeal and which meant that Swedish law did not allow for another arrest warrant for current allegations.

He said British police had probably not taken any action against Assange because the warrant was issued incorrectly rather than because they didn't know where he was.

"The sole ground for the warrant is the prosecutor's blatantly false allegation that he is on the run from justice: he left Sweden lawfully and has offered himself for questioning. An appeal against this decision was filed on Monday and is pending," Stephens said.

Separately, Melbourne barrister James D. Catlin wrote in Crikey:

"Apparently having consensual s-x in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for r-pe. That is the basis for a reinstitution of r-pe charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.[...]

That further evidence hasn’t been confected to make the charges less absurd does Sweden no credit because it has no choice in the matter. The phenomena of social networking through the internet and mobile phones constrains Swedish authorities from augmenting the evidence against Assange because it would look even less credible in the face of tweets by Anna Ardin and SMS texts by Sofia Wilén boasting of their respective conquests after the “crimes”.

In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of r-pe.

But then neither Ardin nor Wilén complained to the police but rather “sought advice”, a technique in Sweden enabling citizens to avoid just punishment for making false complaints. They sought advice together, having collaborated and irrevocably tainted each other’s evidence beforehand. Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange. They belong to the same political group and attended a public lecture given by Assange and organised by them. You can see Wilén on the YouTube video of the event even now.[...]

A great deal more damning evidence is yet to be revealed about what passes for legal process in Sweden, such as Assange’s lawyers having not received a single official document until November 18, 2010 (and then in Swedish language contrary to European Law) and having to learn about the status of investigations through prosecution media announcements but make no mistake: it is not Julian Assange that is on trial here but Sweden and its reputation as a modern and model country with rules of law."

Read more

An appeal against the arrest warrant was filed on Monday on behalf of Julian Assange with the Sweden Supreme Court, which we covered here. Our full Sweden case coverage section can be found here.

2011-07-12 Tweet Stream - @m_cetera LIVE from Hearing July 12 and 13

For previous coverage of Julian Assange extradition trials by Mirjam Eikelboom see here. Follow @m_cetera on Twitter for coverage on July 12 and 13.

Chirpstory of @m_cetera's coverage below.

2011-07-12 Tweet Stream - Julian #Assange's hearing on July 12 & 13 #wjul

Archive - Featured Tweets

• 2011-07-13: AlexiMostrous
  #Assange just passed a smiley face doodle on a post-it to John Pilger.

• 2011-07-13: AlexiMostrous
  Judge asks why #assange wasn't interviewed over phone. "Why does judicial corporation not entail...sensible steps to get on with it"?

• 2011-07-13: m_cetera
  Under Swedish law, the interview that's required, could take place outside of Sweden, by telephone, writing. #wljul

• 2011-07-13: amberlymellow
  Earlier she stressed the word "accused" was never mentioned on EAW RT @auerfeld M: language of eaw "unmistakably that of accusation" #wljul

• 2011-07-13: m_cetera
  Defense: reasonable grounds for Assange to believe there was consent: consensual sex before and after. #wljul

• 2011-07-13: eastendlady
  #wljul #assange judge.. what happened initially not consent. that it went on may be important for us [judges] for dual criminality

• 2011-07-11: Wikileaks
  "Journalists: Less than 24 hours to Assange extradition case. Resources here: swedenversusassange.com"

Archive - Official Publications and Announcements

• SwedenVersusAssange.com
  comprehensive archive of documents relating to the case.

• Appeal hearing: Julian Assange’s Skeleton Argument

• 2011-07-11: Indimedia UK: Solidarity Actions for Assange. Extradition Appeal This Week. Two weeks of solidarity actions in London.

• 2011-07-08: Crown Prosecution Service Diary:
  Julian Assange's appeal hearing is announced. Judgment is expected to be reserved.

Archive - Press Coverage

• SwedenVersusAssange.com
  comprehensive archive of documents relating to the case.

• 2011-10-02: SMH: Moment of truth
  Moment of truth for WikiLeaks as a decision concerning Julian Assange's extradition approaches. The most recent WikiLeaks' developments and the Assange case summarized and analyzed by Guy Rundle.

• 2011-08-09: Professors blogg: London journalist does interview on negative Swedish-media reporting of Assange case
  Professor Ferrada-Noli explains how political aspects and the “duck-pond” phenomenon of Swedish journalism are contributing towards Sweden's hostile reporting of the Assange case and compromising the judiciary process. (blog)

• 2011-07-15: Griffith Review: The Assange appeal and News of the World scandal
  Article by british journalist Barbara Gunnell, who was present at the hearing. Comment on press reports that followed, defense team's legal strategy and reduced media presence, due to focus on phone hacking case.

• 2011-07-15: ZDNet: Assange journalist almost undone by Desire
  A journalist almost got in trouble with the law after he took a picture with his HTC Desire during the extradition appeal hearing. Includes a very brief but accurate summary of the court proceedings.

• 2011-07-14: Dagbladet: - Forventer en positiv kjennelse
  Kristinn Hrafsson expects a positive outcome of Julian Assange's extradition appeal.

• 2011-07-14: WSWS: UK judge defers judgement on extradition of WikiLeaks founder Assange

• 2011-07-13: Reuters: British court defers Assange extradition decision

• 2011-07-13: AFP: WikiLeaks' Assange wraps up appeal case
  Mark Summers closed the defense's case this morning, the hearing continues with prosecution.

• 2011-07-13: Brisbane Times: Assange extradition 'disproportionate'
  Report on Julian Assange's defense arguments in court.

• 2011-07-13: Indimedia UK: Report/ Photos-Solidarity with Julian Assange outside the High Court/ London J12
  Activist Ciaron O'Reilly reports on the first day of extradition appeal, spent outside the Royal Courts of Justice in support of Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

• 2011-07-13: WSWS: WikiLeaks has provided evidence of war crimes, say Assange supporters
  Supporters of Julian Assange and Wikileaks are interviewed outside the Royal Courts of Justice where his extradition appeal hearing is happening.

• 2011-07-13: Brisbane Times: Baby talk claim after alleged Assange rape
  After alleged sexual assault took place, complainants were in a surprisingly good mood.

• 2011-07-12: Aftonbladet: Assange-förhandling fortsätter i morgon
  Kristinn Hrafnsson talks very briefly to Aftonbladet about Julian Assange's extradition case. According to the Swedish newspaper, citing defense, Julian Assange will speak publicly tomorrow.

• 2011-07-12: The Independent: Julian Assange in bid to block extradition
  "European arrest warrant (EAW) which led to Assange's arrest contained "fundamental misstatements" of what had occurred in Stockholm last August", report on Julian Assange's defense arguments in court.

• 2011-07-12: Russia Today: Worldwide whistleblower Assange fights extradition in UK courtReport on Julian Assange's defense arguments in court.

• 2011-07-12: The Telegraph: WikiLeaks: Julian Assange's behaviour was 'disrespectful, but not illegal' Report on Julian Assange's defense arguments in court.

• 2011-07-12: The Guardian: Julian Assange's lawyer tells extradition appeal arrest warrant is invalid Report on Julian Assange's defense arguments in court.

• 2011-07-12: Sydney Morning Herald: Assange extradition baseless, court told
  Report on Julian Assange's defense arguments in court.

• 2011-07-12: AFP: Assange's Swedish lawyer thinks he will be extradited
  Björn Hurtig, Julian's Swedish lawyer, thinks there is a "big risk" extradition will happen.

• 2011-07-12: Expressen: Beslut om överlämnande av Assange
  Sweden newspaper Expressen interviews Claes Borgström, the lawyer representing the complainants, who believes Julian Assange will be extradited to Sweden and Gareth Peirce's previous experience as a Guantanamo Bay attorney is irrelevant to this case.

• 2011-07-12: Berliner Zeitung: Der Mann, der Mendax war
  Interview with Suelette Dreyfus. First questions directly related to Julian Assange's extradition appeal hearing.

• 2011-07-11: Deutsche Welle: Campaign against WikiLeaks founder won't stop leaks According to media experts, the phenomenon of leaks and Wikileaks itself might be unstoppable, despite legal attacks on the organization and Julian Assange possibly facing jail.

• 2011-07-11: The Guardian: Julian Assange to launch fresh extradition appeal in high court "WikiLeaks founder will begin new legal challenge against attempts to send him to Sweden to face sexual assault charges" by Robert Booth, who will be covering the hearing live tomorrow.

• 2011-07-11: El Pais: La abogada de 'los cuatro de Guildford' defenderá a Assange
  Professional background of Gareth Peirce, Julian Assange's new lawyer.

• 2011-07-11: Sydney Morning Herald: Assange faces enforced leisure to ponder folly of a law passed in haste
  A piece by Mary Kostakidis, presented on twitter with the message "#Assange lawyers will need a miracle to fight badly flawed extradition law."

• 2011-07-11: Alt1040: Assange y la Justicia: qué puede ocurrir mañana
  Article with focus on possibility of extradition from Sweden to the U.S.

• 2011-07-11: Radio Netherlands: Wikileaks trial: press freedom under pressure
  The broader implications of the extradition case.

• 2011-07-11: AFP: Assange to start extradition appeal‎
  Extradition hearing announcement.

• 2011-07-08: Rixstep: Wild Tom Hayden
  Rixstep's critical analysis of "The Trials of Julian Assange" by Tom Hayden.

• 2011-07-07: The Nation: The Trials of Julian Assange: A View From Sweden
  Tom Hayden’s take on the Assange case, attempts to obtain Swedish perspective.

• 2011-06-26: ccwlja: Expressen’s double standards
  Blog, Swedish newspaper Expressen printed and online versions - differences and inconsistencies.

• 2011-06-25: Expressen: Assange byter advokat - och taktik
  Expressen on Julian Assange’s defense team, Tom Hayden’s article is quoted.

• 2011-06-25: WSJ: WikiLeaks Leader Shakes Up Legal Team
  Changes in Julian Assange's defense team, Mark Stephens is contacted.

• 2011-06-22: The Nation: Julian Assange's New Legal Strategy
  Tom Hayden announces changes in Julian Assange's legal team and new approach, presents Gareth Peirce's and Claes Borgström's views.

Archive - Previous WL Central hearing coverage

2010-11-18 Letter from Swedish Counsel Björn Hurtig to English co-Counsel for Julian Assange
2010-11-18 The Persecution of Julian Assange, Continued
2010-11-18 The Persecution of Julian Assange: Reactions
2010-11-18 Press release by counsel for Julian Assange
2010-11-18 Statement by Julian Assange's counsel Mark Stephens
2010-11-18 WikiLeaks staff editorial: Why our editor-in-chief is busy and needs to be defended
2010-11-19 Julian Assange to appeal Swedish arrest ruling
2010-11-20 The Persecution of Julian Assange: Reactions, Part 2
2010-11-20 Updates in Swedish case
2010-11-21 RSN Petition in Support of Julian Assange
2010-11-22 Further updates in Swedish case
2010-11-24 Updates in Sweden Appeal Case
2010-11-30 Updates in Sweden case
2010-11-30 Updates in Sweden case: Supreme Court appeal, Interpol notice
2010-12-01 Steven Aftergood: Assange prosecution would be "extremely dangerous"
2010-12-02 Sweden case: The lawyers speak up
2010-12-02 Sweden case: The lawyers speak up II
2010-12-02 Sweden case update: Supreme Court will not consider appeal
2010-12-02 WikiLeaks and the US Espionage Act: legal opinions
2010-12-05 Sweden case update
2010-12-06 Sweden case update II
2010-12-07 Julian Assange arrested on Swedish warrant
2010-12-09 Journalists in defence of WikiLeaks, part 10
2010-12-09 Sweden case updates
2010-12-10 WikiLeaks and the Espionage Act, part 2
2010-12-12 Sweden case updates: Key new evidence
2010-12-14 Julian Assange in Court
2010-12-15 Human Rights Watch letter to President Barack Obama
2010-12-16 Sweden case updates: Bail appeal hearing
2010-12-24 Huffington Post: Bianca Jagger - Trial by Newspaper
2010-12-24 WikiLeaks in today's media: Extradition coverage
2010-12-27 Notes on the persecution of Julian Assange
2010-12-30 Clearing the Air of Nick Davies' Misinformation
2010-12-30 Selections from Twitter Archive concerning Swedish Investigation
2011-01-06 Bianca Jagger: The Julian Assange 'Trial by Newspaper' - A Response to Nick Davies
2011-01-11 Key Points from Provisional Skeleton Argument on Behalf of Mr Assange
2011-01-11 Misleading press coverage of Julian Assange Trial
2011-01-14 Eyewitness Account from Belmarsh Court
2011-01-15 Julian Assange & Mens Rea, Sweden & Doli Incapax: Extradition Part 4
2011-01-23 Swedish PM denies political role in Assange extradition case
2011-01-31 WikiLeaks and Human Rights: Open Letter for Support
2011-02-06 Julian Assange extradition matrix
2011-02-06 The Skeleton Argument of Julian Assange’s lawyers: Extradition part 5
2011-02-07 Extradition hearing: Day one
2011-02-08 Eyewitness account from Belmarsh trial - February 7
2011-02-08 UPDATE Australian attorney general responds to open letter to PM Gillard re Assange
2011-02-08 Witness statement of Bjorn Hurtig - Summary
2011-02-09 Notas sobre la persecución a Julian Assange
2011-02-11 Extradition hearing: Day three
2011-02-15 Four allegations against Julian Assange & ‘dual criminality’: Extradition Part 6
2011-02-18 Australia appeals to Sweden over Assange
2011-02-24 Extradition hearing: Day four (Final round)
2011-02-24 Julian Assange railroaded by the EAW system, remains NOT GUILTY for the present.
2011-02-24 Swedish Newspaper Aftonbladet Hosts Chat with Julian Assange
2011-03-03 Meeting on 2nd March in Parliament House Canberra with MPs re Julian Assange.
2011-03-04 Jennifer Robinson: Brief to Canberra meeting of MP's re Julian Assange
2011-03-06 Darkness at Noon: Bradley Manning
2011-03-17 WikiLeaks Forum at Sydney Town Hall, 16 March 2011
2011-03-26 WikiLeaks Notes
2011-04-02 WikiLeaks Notes: Parliamentarians question treatment of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks
2011-04-06 Hearing date set for Assange extradition appeal
2011-04-26 Open Letter to Kevin Rudd: On Julian Assange and Guantanamo Bay revelations.
2011-06-04 Peter Kemp's conversation with WACA: Australian perspectives on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
2011-06-11 The extradition appeal of Julian Assange: EU melting pots, ambiguities and human rights on trial.
2011-07-05 Sex, lies & no videotape: Göran Rudling dismantles the case against Julian Assange
2011-07-05 Sex, lies, no videotape and more lies. False accusations in the Assange case
2011-07-11 Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden
2011-07-12 Tweet Stream - Julian #Assange's hearing on July 12 & 13 #wjul
2011-07-12 Tweet Stream - WL Central Correspondent LIVE from Hearing

Archive - Videos

• SwedenVersusAssange.com
  comprehensive archive of documents relating to the case.

• 2011-07-14: "Sweden Versus Assange": Sweden x Assange: Julian Assange in Court. London, 12&13 July, 2011 From the swedenversusassange vimeo account, a video on Julian Assange’s extradition. Footage of Julian Assange leaving court.

• 2011-07-13: Russia Today: Assange's legal team adopts new strategy in extradition battle.. Russia Today reports on the second day of the extradition appeal hearing.

• 2011-07-13: Reuters: Assange arrives at court
  Julian Assange arrives at court on the second day of extradition hearing.

• 2011-07-13: 7 News: Kristinn Hrafnsson and Gavin MacFadyen discuss Julian Assange's extradition

• 2011-07-12: Press Association: Assange challenges extradition ruling
  Peter Tatchell speaks out in support of Julian Assange.

• 2011-07-12: The Alyona Show: New Julian Assange Appeal
  Kevin Zeese : fear of extradition to the U.S. is legitimate, Sweden and U.S. have close ties.

• 2011-07-12: Russia Today: Worldwide whistleblower Assange fights extradition in UK court A good summary of the first part of the extradition appeal hearing.

• 2011-07-12: AP: Julian Assange Arrives at London Court

• 2011-06-08: European Parliament: European Arrest Warrant used for political purposes
  Gerard Batten MEP states European Arrest Warrant is being used as instrument against political dissidence in the case of Julian Assange. Points out to many irregularities in the Swedish case against him.

• How to send Wikileaks a short video message of support, concerning the extradition hearing, or the financial blockade for example.

2010-01-21 Debunked: "WikiLeaks Has Blood On Its Hands"

The Falsehood:

During its War Log Releases, Wikileaks carelessly/wantonly/maliciously failed to redact the names of soldiers/informants. As a a result, NATO/Allied troops and/or Afghan/Iraqi informants and/or their families were endangered/killed.

The Explanation:

This allegation has been made in various forms since Wikileaks released the Afghanistan War Logs, and with renewed intensity after the Iraq War Logs.

The Source:

The particular phrase, "Wikileaks has blood on its hands," can be traced to the press release statements of high ranking US officials. Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, in the days following the release of the Afghanistan war logs, made highly publicized statements to this effect.

The quote was quickly seized by news outlets. Glenn Greenwald, in an excellent article, has documented the process of whispers by which the press eventually came to report that Wikileaks indeed does have blood on its hands. The phrase "Wikileaks has blood on its hands" received approx. 2,650,000 search results in Google, at the time of publishing this article.

The Truth:

To date, no name of any casualty directly or arguably attributable to the War Log releases has been mentioned. Overwhelming evidence abounds, and has been reported in the mainstream press, that nobody has been either hurt or killed because of the disclosures. The officials who made the allegations themselves have acknowledged the falsehood of these claims.

• Robert Gates' Memo

2010-10-17: CNN reported that the Department of Defense had concluded that the "online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods."

The assessment, revealed in a letter from Gates to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), comes after a thorough Pentagon review of the more than 70,000 documents posted to the controversial whistle-blower site in July. The letter, provided to CNN, was written August 16 by Gates in response to a query by the senator regarding the leak of classified information. Gates said the review found most of the information relates to "tactical military operations." "The initial assessment in no way discounts the risk to national security," Gates wrote. "However, the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure." The defense secretary said that the published documents do contain names of some cooperating Afghans, who could face reprisal by Taliban. But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.

The above story can be verified in any other major news source.

• No Evidence of Any Casualties

2010-08-17: The Associated Press reported that "there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."

Some private analysts, in fact, think the danger has been overstated. "I am underwhelmed by this argument. The Pentagon is hyping," says John Prados, a military and intelligence historian who works for the anti-secrecy National Security Archive. He said in an interview that relatively few names have surfaced and it's not clear whether their present circumstances leave them in jeopardy.

• Geoff Morrell's Statement

2010-08-11: The Washington Post reported a statement by Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell clarifying that no harm has come as a result of the disclosure. Morrell can be heard to make the statement in the video of the Pentagon press conference.

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell said. But, he asserted, "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

If Morrell's latter statement is to be believed, the lag continues to grow. All of these statements, and the substantive truths they evidence, can be verified for anyone who cares to look.

See also this article from June 2011.

Remarks:

The prominent and mainstream rebuttal of the claim has not prevented the falsehood being conveniently treated as if it were well known fact. It remains as a ready-to-hand premise for far reaching and radical arguments on the part of journalists and politicians hostile to Wikileaks.

Marc Thiessen:

Beyond getting people killed, WikiLeaks' actions make it less likely that Afghans and foreign intelligence services (whose reports WikiLeaks also exposed) will cooperate with the United States in the future. And, as former CIA director Mike Hayden has pointed out, the disclosures are a gift to adversary intelligence services, and they will place a chill on intelligence sharing within the United States government. The harm to our national security is immeasurable and irreparable. And WikiLeaks is preparing to do more damage. Assange claims to be in possession of 15,000 even more sensitive documents, which he is reportedly preparing to release. On Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told ABC News that Assange had a "moral culpability" for the harm he has caused. Well, the Obama administration has a moral responsibility to stop him from wreaking even more damage.Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United States. This means 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 and put his criminal syndicate out of business.

This is one of the more pernicious falsehoods surrounding the Wikileaks releases, and serves to discredit it in, particularly, the eyes of the American public. A rigorous review of the evidence, however, exposes it as one of the more obvious falsehoods.

2010-11-29 Debunked: "WikiLeaks Did Not Redact The Afghanistan War Logs"

The Falsehood:

During its Afghanistan War Log Releases, WikiLeaks carelessly/wantonly/maliciously failed to redact the names of soldiers/informants, or hold back more sensitive information that might endanger lives.

The Explanation:

The allegation has circulated that WikiLeaks would not consider any restraints in the release of its Afghanistan War Log releases, and its Iraq War Log releases. It is now considered common knowledge that WL released both sets of War Logs without any provisions for protecting sensitive identities within them. This is simply not true.

The Source:

This falsehood was developed opportunistically by the Pentagon, and by media organizations friendly to official Washington. The falsehood was afterwards propagated by careless repetition by other news sources, and was passed on by netizens in internet communities and on comment streams, with little regard for its veracity.

The Truth:

The claim is false. WikiLeaks has clearly conducted harm minimization on all of its War Log releases. These harm minimization measures included:

1. Inviting the Pentagon to help WikiLeaks/Sunshine Press and partner news organizations to redact the documents in their possession prior to release. The Pentagon has refused unilaterally in all cases.
2. Using metadata to identify documents in the Afghanistan launch as sensitive.
3. Withholding 15,000 of the some 90,000 documents pertaining to Afghanistan for a full redaction and review.
4. A comprehensive redaction process for the Iraq War Logs release, working back from full redaction to disclosure of information of interest to the historical record, leaving the names of sensitive sources concealed.
5. A policy of gradual release of the State Department Cables release, inviting media organizations to help with the redaction of those documents relevant to their interests in return for (initially) embargoed access.

• Afghan War Logs

Redaction Process
During the press conference for the Afghan War Log release, which was held in London's Frontline Club, on July 25th 2010, Julian Assange outlined clear and principled policy reasons for harm minimization:

Assange:We have a harm minimization process. Our goal is just for reform. Our method is transparency, but we do not put our method before the goal. If we have a serious endeavour, we do things in policy; we do not do things in an ad hoc way. And so far our harm minimization process has always worked. To our knowledge, no one has ever been physically harmed by the material we have released. Even though we have caused the change of governments and many other serious reforms.

Later, Assange commented on the specific harm minimization measures, as regards the Afghan War Log release:

Assange:[W]e have released to the public some 76,000 reports from this set of material. the set itself comprises over 91,000 reports. We have held back about 15,000 reports of a particular type to undergo a further harm minimization review. Some of those reports will be redacted and released as soon as we are able to get through them and others will be withheld until the security situation in Afghanistan means that it is safe to release them.

Later Assange further disclosed more details of the harm minimization process. Since the logs were of a vast quantity, harm minization had been conducted using the metadata of the logs in question. Logs in sensitive categories were held back for further review.

Assange:It is an enormous compendium of material that will affect many different people in many different ways. We as a journalistic group, the four media groups who worked on this, have really only scratched the surface. I think between us we have probably read about a thousand or two thousand of these reports properly. So it's going to take the rest of the world press and academics to look at the statistics that come out of this.

Journalist:Sorry can I just follow up? I just want to understand you correctly. so you say that you have only gone through and detailed 2000 of these...

Assange:Yes.

Journalist:How do you square that, then, with your argument that this is a responsible publication, and that you've done all of the harm minimization that you said you had?

Assange:The documents are in many different categories. They are tagged with different categories. So we can see that some categories do not have the type of material that would, as an example, identify innocent informants.

Development of Falsehood Through Spin
The Pentagon capitalized on the fact that the documents had not been processed individually, and managed to spin the story so as to present WikiLeaks as having made little effort to minimize harm. During an August 3rd Press Conference, Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell belittled the harm minimization measures. (Transcript Available Here)

Morrell:
They claimed initially to have reviewed these documents, then we find out afterwards they only looked at 2000 of them, so they don't really know what's in all of them.

Morrell also made a comment on the 15,000 documents withheld by WikiLeaks.

Morrell:Obviously these 15,000 documents which they claim to be withholding as part of a harm minization exercise are not in our possession. We don't know for sure which 15,000 documents they are referring to. We have some ideas and are doing some proactive work, some prophylactic work in the event that the docs we suspect they could be, or indeed the docs that they are threatening to post... but that's where i'll leave it now.

Morrell made a comment implying that WikiLeaks had not offered to collaborate with the Pentagon in redaction of the material, by denying that WikiLeaks had contacted the Pentagon directly, rather than through the New York Times, which was the agreed intermediary of all of the media organizations collaborating in the Afghanistan War Logs release.

Morrell:On Tuesday it was reported that WikiLeaks has asked the Department of Defense for help in reviewing approximately 15,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks obtained in an unauthorized and inappropriate manner, before WikiLeaks releases those classified documents to the public. WikiLeaks has made no such request directly to the Department of Defense. These documents are the property of the U.S. government and contain classified and sensitive information. The Defense Department demands that WikiLeaks return immediately to the U.S. government all versions of documents obtained directly or indirectly from the Department of Defense databases or records.

Media organizations did not pick up on the "directly" qualification in Morrell's statement, despite the fact that Morrell specifically referred to the New York Times contact later in the press conference. The result was distributed coverage that reported that WikiLeaks had not contacted the Pentagon in an effort to redact the material. His further comments on the matter seemed to intimate that the Pentagon was willing to collaborate with WikiLeaks on the matter, while also, contradictorily, restating the position that the Pentagon was unwilling to cooperate in any meaningful way.

Morrell:They claim to have reached out to the U.S. government for assistance in harm minimization, and then we find out that, no, it was through their "partner" the New York times. I don't know whether the NY times would consider itself their partner. This is an opportunity for them to turn the page. To recognize the situation that they have created and to try to rectify it. If indeed these claims that they have made through these third parties... these spokesmen... communications to use through the news media, are serious. If they are serious about engaging with us they should reach out to us directly. And we will consider how to proceed once something like that happens. The easiest way, however, to solve this... I mean, we're not looking to have a conversation on harm minimization. We're looking to have a conversation about how to get these perilous documents off the website as soon as possible, return them to the rightful owners and explunge them from their records. That will help minimize harm that has already been created.

WikiLeaks' further efforts to offer the Pentagon a collaborative role in ensuring the disclosures would be comprehensively safe were met with categorical refusal. The emerging impression is of a transparency organization willing to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the material was safe for release, and a U.S. government that refused to cooperate.

Imperfect Redaction
It arose later that WikiLeaks' redaction process had not been perfect. The names of certain informants had made it unredacted into the final releases. Mainstream media were content merely to report this fact. More dedicated investigatory coverage fell to more independent internet publications and blogs, although Mark Hosenball, of Newsweek, covered the issue in detail. Glenn Greenwald gave the issue full treatment. Sean Paul Kelley, who writes The Agonist, indicated in a post some of the names that had come to light in the War Logs. However, Kelley's discovery of documentary proof that the Pentagon was consistently refusing to aid the redaction of the logs led him to retract his condemnation of the leaks.

I was wrong. WikiLeaks, based on the evidence that the DoD has presented, did its level best to work with the DoD to redact any names that might harm innocent Afghans. The Pentagon not only lied about it, but has even refused to cooperate going forward... The blood, if there is to be any, is on the Pentagon's hands. It's that simple.

To date, no informant has been harmed by the release of the documents. A review of this claim is contained in 2010-01-21 Debunked: "WikiLeaks Has Blood On Its Hands"

Remarks:

In summary, for the Afghanistan War Logs, WikiLeaks

1. Identified sensitive information using document metadata
2. Offered to collaborate with the U.S. Government in order to review the material prior to release
3. Withheld 15,000 sensitive documents for a further review and redaction

It is therefore manifestly false that WikiLeaks performed no harm minimization efforts on this release. The disclosure of the names of informants in the releases must be understood in the context of the U.S. Government refusal to aid in redacting the documents. To date, there have been no reported casualties as a result of these disclosures. WikiLeaks responded to criticism of these disclosures by implementing an even more thorough harm minimization strategy for the Iraq War Logs release.

2010-12-04 Debunked: "Julian Assange is a Traitor (U.S.)"

The Falsehood:

Wikileaks' release of 250K diplomatic cables constitutes an act of treason against the United States, and renders Julian Assange and other Wikileaks staffers liable to charges punishable by capital punishment.

The Explanation:

This falsehood is quite straightforward, and has become a talking point in the mainstream media since Cablegate broke. It finds form in the belief that Julian Assange is a "traitor," or is involved in "treason," or that, more generally, Wikileaks is involved in treason. The falsehood can only be held along with a profound ignorance of the law of treason, or of the relevant facts.

The Source:

This falsehood has become so prevalent in United States media since Sunday 28 November that it is impossible to trace a comprehensive origin. It emerged from a media climate of growing hyperbole, from veiled suggestions of extrajudicial action from Marc Thiessen and Christian Whiton during the last releases, to the public calls for assassination that are now becoming prevalent.

One prominent airing of the view was by Republican and Representative of the 3rd Congressional District of New York, Peter King, who is also Chairman for the House Homeland Security Committee.

It violates espionage laws. I consider it treason. The fact is, whatever happened here and whoever gave them that information is guilty, to me, of the most detestable, contemptible crime, and we have to take it seriously.

King may have intended to attribute treasonous actions only to the source of the leaks, and not to Wikileaks, but if this is the case, he did not choose his words delicately enough. The subtlety of the distinction between Assange and his source was lost on a great many individuals. The falsehood has now propagated through the social media and the blogosphere, where discussion by civilians is played out. To anyone listening to the tweets of middle America, it is plain that this falsehood is rather prevalent.

A Google search for "Assange Traitor" will now turn up countless articles like this one, from a blogger whose internet publication career betrays associations with David Horowitz and Andrew Breitbart.

The Truth:

The claim is so clearly false as to be comical. Three simple propositions illustrate its absurdity.

1. A traitor is someone who is guilty of the crime of treason.
2. Treason is the crime of betraying one's own state.
3. Julian Assange is not an American citizen, but an Australian citizen.

It's worth having a look at some American law on treason. The United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381 states:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The crime of treason is limited by the United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, which states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The above restraint on the definition of treason entails that even were Assange an American citizen, he could not be held to be guilty of treason, since the express goal of Wikileaks' activity as regards the United States is not to make war against the United States, nor to give aid or comfort to its enemies, but variously, reform, the cessation of illegal activity within the United States government, a more informed public, a stronger press, and the adherence of the United States to the laws set out in its own Constitution, which Assange has personally cited on countless occasions.

[W]e are an organization that tries to make the world more civil and act against abusive organizations that are pushing it in the opposite direction...

So if you want to talk about the law, it's very important to remember the law is not what, not simply what, powerful people would want others to believe it is. The law is not what a general says it is. The law is not what Hillary Clinton says it is. The law is not what a bank says it is. The law, rather, is what the Supreme Court in [the] land in the end says it is, and the Supreme Court in the case of the United States has an enviable Constitution on which to base its decisions. And that Constitution comes out of a revolutionary movement and has a Bill of Rights appraised by James Madison and others that includes a nuanced understanding for the balancing of power of [the] states in relation to the government. Now, whether the Supreme Court makeup now is such that it keeps to its traditions or proposes a radical reassessment of the power of the First Amendment and the U.S. Constitution remains to be seen. However, the U.S. Espionage Act is widely viewed to be overbroad, and that is perhaps one of the reasons it has never been properly tested in the Supreme Court. I think it was maybe found to be unconstitutional and struck out. Now we understand that there are attempts by [Attorney General Eric] Holder and others in the U.S. Administration to shoehorn the Espionage Act, Section G in particular, onto legitimate press functions. Those efforts are dangerous in the sense that they may give rise to a Supreme Court challenge, which throws out the Espionage Act, or at least that section, in its entirety. If that succeeds, that will of course only be good business for WikiLeaks, because the rest of the U.S. press will be further constrained and people will simply come to us.

source

Remarks:

It is manifestly false that Julian Assange is a traitor, or that Wikileaks is engaged in activity against the United States that, were it an American entity, would render it liable to prosecution for treason.

Addendum: Some might claim that Assange might still be a traitor, since Cablegate contains sensitive diplomatic material pertaining to Australian interests. On this matter, and also the matter of whether Assange or Wikileaks have violated any Australian law, please see this article, by legal scholar Ben Saul.

2010-12-04 Debunked: "WikiLeaks is Anti-American"

The Falsehood:

While claiming to be an organization interested in global justice, Wikileaks is really a virulently anti-American organization.

The Explanation:

This falsehood is quite straightforward. Its propagation in the media, especially the U.S. media, has vastly increased since Sunday 29 November, on which date Wikileaks began its Cablegate releases. The falsehood normally relies on a group of subsidiary falsehoods, such as the idea that "Wikileaks won't release information on China or Russia."

The Source:

This falsehood is hard to trace to an original source, since its use has been so frequent. One can only point to prominent sources, and look at these as representative of, or causative of, the falsehood's popularity. In a now very famous post on her Facebook page, former governor of Alaska, and former vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, wrote a single short sentence which managed to include two frequent falsehoods in only ten words:

He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands.

The substance of the allegation, though, consists in the belief that Wikileaks publishes no material on other entities. This argument has been made in the Telegraph, by George Grant.

If Assange is genuinely committed to shining light into the darkness, and exposing real corruption and human rights abuse, we must ask ourselves, where are the ‘Chinese Embassy Cables’? What has become of the ‘Iran Files’? Whither the ‘Chechnya War Logs’?...

The ... answer to this question could just as easily be, however, that Assange is not really all that interested in exposing corruption and human rights abuse at all, rather his objective is to embarrass and weaken the US and its Western allies because he hates them for what they are and what they stand for.

Following on from arguments like this, one finds the question "Why doesn't Wikileaks focus on other countries?" repeated all over the internet, with little concern over the falsehood of its premise, and little worry that it funds an inference to a new falsehood.

The Truth:

There are many ways to approach debunking this falsehood. One thing it is important to say from the outset: there is little reason to rely on allegation and rumour from American punditry, when there is already a thorough and articulate defense of Wikileaks' activities by its various spokespersons. We advise that even a cursory attempt to engage with Wikileaks' now plentiful literature on its own activities will comprehensively answer many of the worries raised by media personalities with a proven history of rhetorical mendacity. At the very least, criticisms of Wikileaks ought to address Wikileaks strong and intellectually penetrating arguments, and there has been very little attempt to do that by American news networks and mainstream publications.

• 1. How material finds its way to Wikileaks

A prominent misconception about Wikileaks is that it proactively acquires its material, and therefore must have deliberately sought material on the United States. This is false. The first thing that must be understood is that Wikileaks does not proactively acquire its leaks. Assange on the matter:

We’re totally source dependent. We get what we get. As our profile rises in a certain area, we get more in a particular area. People say, why don’t you release more leaks from the Taliban. So I say hey, help us, tell more Taliban dissidents about us.

All of Wikileaks' material has been sent to it, by insider whistleblowers, who felt that it was necessary to disclose something. Wikileaks can therefore only choose what to publish from what has already been submitted to it.

Before its old website was taken down, (a newer version can be consulted here) Wikileaks publicly stated it would only accept leaks of the following sort:

1. Classified, censored, or otherwise restricted material of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical significance.
2. WikiLeaks does not accept rumour, opinion, or other kinds of first hand reporting or material that is already publicly available.
3. Areas of documents leaked thus far have covered government, trade, corporate, war, killings, torture, detention, suppression of free speech and free press, diplomacy, spying, counter-intelligence, ecology, climate, nature, sciences, corruption, finances, taxes, trading, censorship and internet filtering, cults, religious organizations, abuse, violence, violations.

Wikileaks agrees, therefore, to accept material that concerns more than just the United States. The organization concerns itself with a broad range of materials.

On this point, it is also worth observing that though it may have changed policy as it grew, in the past, Wikileaks proclaimed a predominant interest in 'Third World' leaks.

Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact.

• 2. What Wikileaks has published in the past.

Another common assumption is that Wikileaks has only published material on the United States. Given the availability of Wikileaks' previous publications, this is perhaps understandable. Nevertheless, it is false. Wikileaks' publishing history in fact bears out its stated remit of pursuing materials of signifiance to the historical record. Because of DDOS attacks and corporate webhost divestment from Wikileaks, the original MediaWiki site from which Wikileaks draws its name is no longer available (originally at wikileaks.org). A copy of that site still exists in Google Cache. There, a vast number of leaks is visible, relevant to a wide variety of corporate and national entities. A selection includes:

• CIA Red Cell Memorandum on United States "exporting terrorism", 2 Feb 2010
• ABC Foreign Correspondent video report on Thailand, 13 April 2010
• Loveparade 2010 Duisburg planning documents, 2007-2010
• WikiLeaks reveals Pentagon journalist murder-coverup in Iraq / army airstrike video, 5 Apr 2010
• U.S. Embassy profiles on Icelandic PM, Foreign Minister, Ambassador, 29 Mar 2010
• CIA report into shoring up Afghan war support in Western Europe, 11 Mar 2010
• U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, 18 Mar 2008
• Over 40 billion euro in 28167 claims made aganst the Kaupthing Bank, 23 Jan 2010
• BBC High Court Defence against Trafigura libel suit, 11 Sep 2009
• Icelandic Icesave offer to UK-NL, 25 Feb 2010
• Cryptome.org takedown: Microsoft Global Criminal Compliance Handbook, 24 Feb 2010
• Classified cable from US Embassy Reykjavik on Icesave dated 13 Jan 2010
  Tiger Woods UK media gag order, 10 Dec 2009
• Big Pharma inside the WHO: confidential analysis of unreleased WHO Expert Working Group draft reports, 8 Dec 2009
• Draft Copenhagen climate change agreement, 8 Dec 2009
• US Transportation Security Administration: Screening Procedures Standard Operating Procedures, 1 May 2008
• Yahoo compliance guide for law enforcement, 23 Dec 2008
• Microsoft COFEE (Computer Online Forensics Evidence Extractor) tool and documentation, Sep 2009
• Rechtsanwalt Solmecke unzensierter Blogeintrag zu Abmahnanwaelten und deren Geschaeftspraktiken, 25 Nov 2009
• WikiLeaks to release over half a million 9/11 text pager intercepts
• Toll Collect Betreibervertrag, 5 Jun 2002
• Toll Collect AGES International Kooperationsvertrag, 20 Sep 2002
• Toll Collect Sachverstaendigenvertrag Dr.-Ing. Schwerhoff, 23 May 2003
• Rechtsanwalt Seibert droht WikiLeaks mit Strafverfolgung wegen Ratiopharm Ermittlungsakte, 20 Nov 2009
• Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009
• Davenport Lyons and DigiProtect Actionpoints for filesharers, 14 Jan 2009
• Davenport Lyons and Kornmeier Monetary and Working Correspondence, 19 Mar 2008
• Ermittlungsakte Landespolizeidirektion Tuebingen gegen die Ratiopharm GmbH wegen Untreue und Bestechung, 12 Mar 2008
• Controversial holocaust historian David Irving emails, Nov 2009
• EU draft council decision on sharing of banking data with the US and restructuring of SWIFT, 10 Nov 2009
• Suppressed video of Thai Crown Prince and Princess at decadent dog party
• Spring Design Inc lawsuit against Barnes and Nobles, Nov 2009
• Removed paper on Internet censorship trails in Australia, NZ, UK with NetClean Whitebox, 2009
• British National Party membership list and other information, 15 Apr 2009
• UK MoD Manual of Security Volumes 1, 2 and 3 Issue 2, JSP-440, RESTRICTED, 2389 pages, 2001
• Times TOP50 work places for women, due to appear on 7 Oct 2009, looks like a fraud, internal docs, Aurora, 2007-2009
• UK Ministry of Defence continually monitors WikiLeaks: eight reports into classified UK leaks, 29 Sep 2009
• Corruption in Norway, Ghana or both? Statoil v. BioFuel and the Kroll Inc. private intelligence report, Feb 2009
• FDP Arguliner zu Aenderungen beim Kuendigungsschutz, 8 Sep 2009
  Lycos Deutschland Suchmaschinen Zensurliste
• Product placement hell: Cisco "bribes" 24, CSI, House, Heroes, the Office, and more
• Yale pharmacology chair Joseph Schlessinger suppressed site exposing sexual, financial misconduct, 14 Sep 2009

Further confirmation of this publishing history is available on the Wikileaks Official Twitter feed, which records the history of Wikileaks as it developed since February 2009. An archive of this twitter feed is available here on WLcentral, which may be easier to peruse. The Twitter feed is invaluable for exploring the history of each of these leaks in great detail, as well as the fuller history of the Wikileaks organization.

• 3. How Wikileaks prioritizes its publications

The third point to consider is that 2010 has been a year of "megaleaks" with an emphasis on the United States. Why is this, if Wikileaks is not deliberately targeting the United States?

In an interview with Andy Greenberg, for Forbes, Julian Assange explains this quite reasonably.

Greenberg:To start, is it true you’re sitting on trove of unpublished documents?

Assange:Sure. That’s usually the case. As we’ve gotten more successful, there’s a gap between the speed of our publishing pipeline and the speed of our receiving submissions pipeline. Our pipeline of leaks has been increasing exponentially as our profile rises, and our ability to publish is increasing linearly...

Greenberg:You’ve been focused on the U.S. military mostly in the last year. Does that mean you have private sector-focused leaks in the works?

Assange:Yes. If you think about it, we have a publishing pipeline that’s increasing linearly, and an exponential number of leaks, so we’re in a position where we have to prioritize our resources so that the biggest impact stuff gets released first.

Greenberg:When will WikiLeaks return to its older model of more frequent leaks of smaller amounts of material?

Assange:If you look at the average number of documents we’re releasing, we’re vastly exceeding what we did last year. These are huge datasets. So it’s actually very efficient for us to do that. If you look at the number of packages, the number of packages has decreased. But if you look at the average number of documents, that’s tremendously increased.

Greenberg:So will you return to the model of higher number of targets and sources?

Assange:Yes. Though I do actually think…[pauses] These big package releases. There should be a cute name for them.

Greenberg:Megaleaks?

Assange:Megaleaks. That’s good. These megaleaks…They’re an important phenomenon, and they’re only going to increase. When there’s a tremendous dataset, covering a whole period of history or affecting a whole group of people, that’s worth specializing on and doing a unique production for each one, which is what we’ve done.

We can therefore understand that the dominant leaks of 2010, Collateral Murder, the Afghanistan and Iraq War Logs and Cablegate, were larger and of more urgency than other material in Wikileaks' possession, such that it was necessary to prioritize these leaks. This has been a consistent message throughout 2010. Assange made a similar statement during the press conference for the Afghanistan War Logs in July.

Wikileaks is on a bit of publishing hiatus in order to do significant reengineering to cope with the level of submissions we are receiving and the level of public interest in our site. It's actually a very hard engineering task to supply 2-5% of the entire world internet connected population at a single moment with material. And so we are a small organization trying to understand how to do that an do that in a secure way. As a result we have built up during that period an enormous backlog of whistleblower disclosures. Additionally after the Collateral Murder tape came out which revealed how two Reuters journalists were killed in Baghdad, along with 16-26 other people, we received a substantial increase in the number of submissions. Now we have an enormous range of material we are trying to get through and keep our promise to our sources in achieving the maximum political impact for that material. This is one of those cases. This is one of the cases of us getting through our backlog. So we have released to the public some 76000 reports from this set of material. The set itself comprises over 91000 reports. We have held back about 15000 reports of a particular type to undergo a further harm minimization review. and some of those reports will be redacted and released as soon as we are able to get through them and others will be withheld until the security situation in Afghanistan means that it is safe to release them. And by safe, I do not mean safe for military forces, I mean safe for the local population of Afghanistan.

Another important thing to note from the above quote is that Wikileaks' limited resources have been entirely occupied with the task of preparing 2010's United States leaks for publication, and that leaks with more diverse subject matter will necessarily have been postponed until these leaks have been fully published.

• 4. Wikileaks' Publicly-stated Intentions

The final point to consider is Wikileaks' spokespeople's explicit statements about the purpose of the United States releases, and their attitude towards the United States. Wikileaks upholds founding values of the United States as inspirational to its own project, and celebrates the freedom of speech tradition consistently defended by the United States Supreme Court:

Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society's institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.

Scrutiny requires information. Historically, information has been costly in terms of human life, human rights and economics. As a result of technical advances particularly the internet and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered. In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.

Julian Assange is known to have a sophisticated view of the United States, illustrated clearly in this interview in TIME Magazine:

The United States has some immutable traditions, which, to be fair, are based on the French Revolution and the European Enlightenment. The United States' Founding Fathers took those further, and the federalism of the United States also, of relatively powerful states trying to constrain federal government from becoming too centralized. Also added some important democratic controls and understandings. So there is a lot of good that has historically come from the United States. But after World War II, during World War II, the federal government of the United States started sucking the resources to the center, and the power of states started to diminish. Interestingly, the First Amendment started overriding states' laws around that time, which I see as a function of increasing central power in the United States. I think the problems with the United States as a foreign power stem from, simply, its economic success, whereby it's, historically at least, a very rich country with a number of people and the desire left over as a result of ... Let me explain this a bit better. The U.S. saw the French Revolution and it also saw the behavior of the U.K. and the other kings and dictatorships, so it intentionally produced a very weak President. The President was, however, given a lot of power for external relations, so as time has gone by, the presidency has managed to exercise its power through its foreign affairs function. ... But as the United States has grown economically, that has led to a situation where the foreign affairs power is latched on to by central government to increase the power of the government, as opposed to state government. The U.S. is, I don't think by world standards, an exception, rather it is a very interesting case both for its abuses and for some of its founding principles.

Wikileaks consistent mission, throughout its 4 year existence, has been to promote justice through transparency and the advocacy of a strong press. These principles are consonant with founding values of Western democracy, in particular, those of the United States. Where Wikileaks has been in conflict with United States authorities over the last year, Wikileaks has advocated the values of the United States Constitution against those in the U.S. Government who would erode those values. This analysis is borne out for anyone who cares to examine the events of 2010.

Remarks:

In conclusion, while it is a fair observation that the predominant focus of Wikileaks' public activity in 2010 has been the United States, it is roundly untrue that this represents an anti-American agenda on the part of the organization. The idea that Wikileaks is anti-American is straightforwardly false, with reference to the fact that:

1. Wikileaks does not choose its sources. Its sources choose Wikileaks.
2. Wikileaks has a long publishing history on countries other than the United States, and on companies outside of the United States.
3. Wikileaks must prioritise its publications by criteria of urgency and significance, and apply its limited resources to efforts towards speedy publication.
4. Wikileaks openly and verbally defends the values of the United States Constitution against those within the United States and elsewhere who would erode them.

Other similar articles:MSNBC Pundits Push False Narrative On WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange

2011-01-03 Debunked: "WikiLeaks' 'Critical Infrastructure' Cable endangers U.S. National Security"

The Falsehood:

WikiLeaks' release of 09STATE15113 represents a gross failure of due diligence, presenting a list of targets for terrorist operatives, and endangering the lives of US nationals and national security.

The Explanation:

Official attacks on WikiLeaks over 2010 have taken a twofold and often contradictory nature.

• On the one hand, nothing new is said to have been revealed (this claim is substantiated by cherrypicking).
• On the other hand, the releases are said to expose sensitive information, that endangers national security (this claim is rarely substantiated, and normally remains general.)

The present falsehood is the 'smoking gun' in the "sensitive information" argument, in light of the fact that WikiLeaks has an immaculate record in journalistic responsibility thus far. WikiLeaks' release of 09STATE15113 is lately the sole example raised in support of the idea that WikiLeaks endangers national security. It contains a list of sites compiled by the State Department, and designated as "critical to national security." The document is said to provide enemies of the United States with a useful list of targets.

The Source:

The cable in question was released on the 5th of December, 2010. The story originally broke the next day in The Times (UK), in response to comments by Sir Malcolm Rifkind and it was the source for other articles. The Times article is behind a paywall, but it was syndicated in The Australian, for anyone who wishes to read it. From these origins, it became a global story, and a major talking point on the American news networks, mostly without any need to make actual reference to the content of the document.

The Truth:

The endangerment of national security assets, or lives, is likely to be exaggerated.

Concerted efforts by officials to play up the seriousness of the disclosure have been undermined by

1. general facts about the sensitivity of the diplomatic cables in question
2. specific and credible analysis about the sensitivity of the information disclosed in 09STATE15113

1. General Facts about SIPRNET

The military intelligence database from which the present cable releases were drawn, SIPRNET, contained information with a maximum classification level of "SECRET." This is regarded as a relatively low classification. As a result, access to the documents in question was extended to individuals of a relatively low clearance level, numbering in total approximately 2.5 million people. Even non nationals were given access to SIPRNET.

As a result, it is not credible that WikiLeaks' publication (with its media partners) of 09STATE15113, or any of the other cables, discloses anything new to the foreign intelligence community, nor to well organized terrorist organizations. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' has observed, in connection with the present cable release:

Let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time.

It emerges from a balanced appraisal of the sensitivity of the information released in Cablegate that there is little danger of disclosing anything new to foreign governments, or any organization likely to have been expending capital and effort to gain access to classified US information.

A familiarity with the realities of how espionage is conducted, which is attainable by a careful reading of the accounts of former spies like Robert Baer, recommends the following line of reasoning:

• a)There is a difference between espionage and the disclosures that led to Cablegate, which were motivated by a desire to disclose information to the public.

• b)Those who engage in genuine espionage run a far smaller risk of getting caught than those who disclose information to the public, because the nature of espionage is that it is clandestine, whereas the nature of public disclosure is that it generates publicity, and is therefore intrinsically conspicuous to authorities. Ironically, the structural facts of the intelligence community are such that there exist incentives for those who would commit espionage, whereas whistleblowing is disincentivized. We can assume that ousted high profile spies like Harold James Nicholson and Robert Hanssen represent a small minority of the total number of actual spies in the US military and intelligence community, who will normally have been guilty of disclosing information of a far lower level of classification, and will often have remained uncaught. This lends support to the idea, introduced by Robert Gates comment above, that leaks of information are an information security reality and not an exception.

• c)Leaks of intelligence data to the public, in the public interest, are almost certainly far rarer than leaks motivated purely by monetary gain. The last such public interest leak on a grand scale was the Pentagon Papers, in the early 1970s.

• d)If the story behind the leaking of Cablegate is to be believed (and there are some very reasonable doubts about its reliability), the present leak of 250,000 diplomatic cables, and some 500,000 military communications, were carried out with absurd ease. US information security was so lax that an Army private was allegedly able to burn all of the leaked data from an army computer onto a blank DVD labelled "Lady Gaga," and simply carry it out of the military data center.

• e)It is credible to assume, on the basis of the foregoing, that given lax information security, the extremely wide access constituency for the SIPRNET database, and the scarcity of public interest disclosures relative to genuine espionage operations, the information in Cablegate was already in the hands of anyone who had seriously sought it. The only group given the opportunity to learn anything new is the general public, whose only conduit to information about what is done in its name has until now been the corporate mainstream press.

This argument, which is not conclusive by any means, still encourages us to regard the official outrage about Cablegate not as deriving from any risk that foreign intelligence agencies or terrorists have learned anything new, but that the public has been given an insight into things that a global and borderless elect would prefer it didn't know.

In general terms, it also causes us to regard with suspicion the hysterical soundbites of British, Canadian and U.S. officials reported in the press, with reference to 09STATE15113.

2. Specific Analysis of 09STATE15113

The above analysis is borne out in a December 12th article by STRATFOR, in which the media interest in 09STATE15113 is described as a "frenzy," concludes that "[m]edia interest aside, STRATFOR does not see this document as offering much value to militant groups planning attacks against US targets abroad."

"The sites listed in the cable," writes STRATFOR, "are either far too general, such as tin mines in China; are not high-profile enough to interest militants, such as undersea cables; or already represent well-known strategic vulnerabilities, such as the Strait of Malacca."

STRATFOR indicates that the information available in the cable is unlikely to have been unknown to any well-funded and highly organized terrorist organization, and as a result, is not nearly as sensitive as it has been reported to have been.

STRATFOR has discussed how many of the sorts of targets mentioned in the cable do not necessarily lend themselves to successful terrorist attacks...

Instead of an earth-shattering list of sites vulnerable to terrorist attacks, the list leaked this week is really a more revealing look at the inner bureaucracy and daily activities of the US security community and at how diplomats around the world contribute to assessing threats to US interests. This does not mean listed sites will not ever be attacked, but that experienced militants do not rely on DHS studies to provide targeting guidance.

The article is behind a registration wall at STRATFOR's site (which didn't work for this author), but has been syndicated by The Manilla Times, and can be read there.

The conclusion recommended by this analysis is that the disclosure of 09STATE15113 represents even less of a national security threat than the accidental publication of THE LIST OF SITES, LOCATIONS, FACILITIES, AND ACTIVITIES DECLARED TO THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY by the U.S. Government Printing Office, in June 2009.

Remarks:

Based on a credible analysis of the classification level of the material of which 09STATE15113 is a part, the realities of the intelligence community, the apparently lax information security of the United States military, and the informed opinions of professional analysts, it is very likely that reportage on 09STATE15113 tends towards the sensational, and that this cable does not constitute the smoking gun that critics of WikiLeaks desperately need in order to substantiate their claims that WikiLeaks "endangers national security."

ADDENDUM: There is also some merit to the idea that attacks on critical infrastructure would be a move away from the modus operandi of the global terror movement.

Where attacks such as the Madrid and London bombings, and the attacks on the 11th of September 2001, were calculated so as to kill as many civilians as possible, and to be as symbolic as possible, thereby spreading terror, and (successfully) causing the Western establishment to attack its own tradition of civil and political freedoms, attacks on infrastructural targets would appear to be rather less symbolic, stand less of a chance of massive civilian casualties, and would appear to harmonize rather more closely with what are considered legitimate forms of warfare by any major party to a war in the last 200 years.

This does not vindicate or condone any such attack; it constitutes instead a recognition that it would be rather more difficult to distinguish in kind between an Al Qaeda attack on critical infrastructural U.S. targets, and the U.S. attacks on critical infrastructure which are well documented in every major military engagement the U.S. conducted in the 20th and 21st centuries, from Vietnam through the Gulf conflicts to the ongoing war in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda chose to target U.S. infrastructure, rather than centres of civilian activity, it would have moved away from acts of terror, and towards only slightly less reprehensible acts of war. The moral distinction between the parties to the "War on Terror" would become even less clear.

Español

Français

Italiano

Português

Svenska

Български

Македонски

العربية‎

تجدون أدناه قائمة مقالات باللغة العربية. بعضها مترجم و بعضها أصلي. سوف نقوم بإضافة المزيد قريباً

Deutsch

한국어

Individual Rights and Freedoms

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a 63 year old document generally agreed to be the foundation of international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in 1976, and serve to render a great deal of the original document ambiguous or weak. Together with the UDHR, the Covenants comprise the International Bill of Human Rights. There are many other documents that support, interpret, supplement or replace these in national law, treaties, or constitutions. We support the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and encourage examination of the Covenants as well as democratic efforts to effect change to these documents. We also strongly encourage action against national law that is in violation of these laws.

We feel it is timely to point out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, in response to the atrocities of the Second World War and the rise of fascist leaning states in the 1930s. We, like the original architects of the UDHR, recognize that the majority rule represented in a pure democracy must be subject to agreements on individual rights for there to be true justice. If the majority agree to exterminate a race of people or destroy an environment, that does not make it just.

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a 30 article document of such simplicity and beauty that we support it in its entirety and reproduce it for you here.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Archive - 2009-02 (February 2009)

• 2009-02-02: WikiLeaks: CRS: Russia-Georgia Conflict in South Ossetia: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests, October 24, 2008 A WikiLeaks Release

Archive - 2009-04 (April 2009)

• 2009-04-02: Wikileaks: Kenyan assassinations: slain human rights lawyer Oscar Kamau Kingara letter to the International Criminal Court, 1 Jan 2009 A Wikileaks release
• 2009-04-03: Wikileaks: Stroud District Council Gloucestershire invested 3M pounds in failed Icelandic Bank Glitnir, Internal Audit Report, Nov 2008A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-03: Wikileaks: Militares de Colombia: FARC Operacion HELIO, SECRETO, 13 Oct 2006A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-04: Wikileaks: Canadian Foreign Affairs and Trade ACTA Consultation Report, 2008 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-06: Sydney Morning Herald: Defence contractor suspended over neo-Nazi linkAsher Moses reports on Australian Wikileaks story.
• 2009-04-08: Wikileaks: US TSA Security Directive establishing a new aviation ID card scheme, 1542-04-08F, 10 Dec 2008A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-08: Wikileaks: ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen "High Value Detainees" in CIA Custody, 14 Feb 2007A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-09: Wikileaks: NATO summit policing guide, Mar 2009A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-10: Wikileaks: US State Department Passport Acceptance Guide, Jan 2002A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-10: Wikileaks: NSW WorkCover private insurer contracts, 2005-2009 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-10: Wikileaks: 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment, Mar 2009 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-10: Wikileaks: Germany deletes WikiLeaks.de domain after raid A Wikileaks Press Release
• 2010:04-11: Wikileaks: Wikileaks German Domain Mass Effort to Circumvent Censorship Wikileaks supporters in Germany donate subdomains to Wikileaks, to compensate for deletion of Wikileaks.de
• 2009-04-11: Wikileaks: Classified US, Japan and EU ACTA trade agreement drafts, 2009 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-16: Wikileaks: US DHS: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, 7 Apr 2009 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-15: Gulli.com: Wikileaks: Theodor Reppe interview (English version) An interview with the owner of the Wikileaks.de domain name, whose house was raided
• 2009-04-17: Wikileaks: US Justice torture memo for CIA: Application of US Obligations Under Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture to Certain Techniques that May Be Used in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees, 30 May 2005 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-18: Wikileaks: University of St. Thomas faculty email war 13 Apr 2009 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-19: Mother Jones: The MoJo vs. WikiLeaks Smackdown Continues Mother Jones' coverage continues to get personal.
• 2009-04-20: Wikileaks: Afghanistan Order of Battle, 2007A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-20: Wikileaks: US Army: Tactics in Counterinsurgency, FMI 3-24.2, Mar 2009 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-20: Wikileaks: Correction of DPA Article in respect of Wikileaks and Steve Jobs HIV test story Press Release
• 2009-04-22: Wikileaks: A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-22: BBC News: Battle over global anti-counterfeit treatyInternet law professor Michael Geist on the battle over a controversial global anti-counterfeiting treaty.
• 2009-04-22: Wikileaks: Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in US Custody, 20 Nov 2008 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-22: Wikileaks: US Space and Naval Warfare Pacific Missile Range Facility base security analysis and plans, 8 Aug 2008 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-23: Wikileaks: New York Homeland Security: Hamas' US Network, 1 Feb 2006 A Wikileaks Relase
• 2009-04-23: BerlinOnline.de: Wie die Internetplattform Wikileaks für Informationsfreiheit kämpft Investigation of Wikileaks
• 2009-04-23: Wikileaks: US $547M Ghana grant contract, Sep 2007 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-23: Wikileaks: US Antiterrorism manual, JP 3-07.2, Apr 2006 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-24: Wikileaks: British National Party Language and Concepts Discipline Manual, July 2005 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-30: Wikileaks: US Marine Corps Intelligence Exploitation of Enemy Material, 2006 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-30: Wikileaks: Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS) Student Leader handbook, 2008 A Wikileaks Release
• 2009-04-30: Wikileaks: East Timorese go begging as foreign advisers rake it in: World Bank file on Ines Almeida, 2008 A Wikileaks Release

Archive - 2009-06 (June 2009)

Coverage in June 2009:

2009-06-23: WIRED: Danger Room (Noah Schactman): Afghan Airstrike Video Goes Down the Memory Hole Information on the Garani airstrike video Wikileaks claims to possess.

Archive - 2010-01 (January 2010)

Coverage in January 2010:

• 2010-01-04: Leak-o-nomy Blog: Leak-o-nomy: The Economy of Wikileaks (Interview with Julian Assange) Financing and Funding of Wikileaks at the start of 2010. Originale auf Deutsch
• 2010-01-06: FoxNews: Whistleblower Web Site Goes Dark, Seeks Funding A Web site that for years has let anonymous whistleblowers break stories of corruption and government malfeasance has gone dark and is expected to remain offline until it finds funds to support its operations and fend off lawsuits.
• 2010-01-07: Voltairenet.org "Open Letter: Support Iceland Against the Financial Blackmail of the British and Dutch Governments and the IMF" by Birgitta Jónsdóttir
• 2010-01-07: Sam Smith: Undernews: HOW FOUNDATIONS HARM JOURNALISM AND POLITICS
• 2010-01-19: Herald Tribune: Swiss Banker Blows Whistle on Tax Evasion
  
• 2010-01-21: Seth Hanford: Cisco Blogs: Wikileaks and the Economics of Information Disclosure
• 2010-01-27: ACLU Massachussetts Podcast: First Amendment Minute on Wikileaks Fundraising and awareness podcast for Wikileaks by ACLU.
• 2010-01-21: EFF.org: EFF Plans Appeal of Jewel v. NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Case Court Rules That Mass Surveillance of Americans is Immune From Judicial Review
• 2010-01-28: Bangalore Mirror: PayPal has frozen Wikileaks’ account, provoking angry ‘tweets’ from users A website for those who want to call attention to confidential information by submitting restricted documents has been inactive for at least a week due to lack of funds, as PayPal has frozen its account.
• 2010-01-29: The Guardian: Wikileaks temporarily shuts down due to lack of funds Whistleblowing website says it cannot continue without public donations and has appealed for cash
• 2010-01-29: GuidoFawkes: Wikileaks is Skint
• 2010-01-29: Emily Butselaar: The Guardian Dig deep for Wikileaks The whistleblowers' website has been temporarily shut down as it appeals for donations, depriving us of a vital democratic tool
• 2010-01-29: Bright.nl (Dutch) : Wikileaks heeft hulp nodig Op Wikileaks kunnen klokkenluiders anoniem documenten uploaden. Wikileaks luidt nu zelf, eh, de noodklok.
• 2010-01-29: BBC: Wikileaks on the Culture Show - Friday 29th January 2010
• 2010-01-29: The Spectator: Save Wikileaks
• 2010-01-28: Red Ice Radio: Interview with Birgitta Jonsdottir: Financial War Against Iceland (audio)

Archive - 2010-02 (February 2010)

Archive - 2010-03 (March 2010)

Coverage in March:

• 2010-03-17: The New York Times: Pentagon Sees a Threat From Online Muckrakers by Stephanie Strom
• 2010-03-26: WebProNews: Wikileaks Sponsor Raided By German Police Article on the raid of the home of Theodore Reppe
• 2010-03-27: Glenn Greenwald for Salon.com: The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters Important Analysis of leaked CIA files documenting plans to destroy Wikileaks, by Glenn Greenwald

Archive - 2010-04 (April 2010)

Coverage in April:

• 2010-04-05: Reuters: Leaked U.S. video shows deaths of Reuters' Iraqi staffers Reuters breaking news on Collateral Murder
• 2010-04-05: The New York Times: Video Shows U.S. Killing of Reuters Employees The New York Times breaks news on Collateral Murder
• 2010-04-05: Russia Today: WikiLeaks Documents Murder in Iraq The Aloyna Show Special on Collateral Murder
• 2010-04-05: The Christian Science Monitor: Wikileaks releases video depicting US forces killing of two Reuters journalists in IraqThe Christian Science Monitor breaks news on Collateral Murder
• 2010-04-06: Democracy Now: Massacre Caught on Tape: US Military Confirms Authenticity of Their Own Chilling Video Showing Killing of JournalistsIn depth coverage and transcript concerning Collateral Murder, by Democracy Now
• 2010-04-06: BBC News: WikiLeaks posts video of 'US military killings' in Iraq BBC breaking news on Collateral Murder
• 2010-04-06: The New York Times: Airstrike video brings notice to a web site The New York Times covers the Collateral Murder video, dismissively.
• 2010-04-06: The Register: Wikileaks video shows US gunfire on Reuters staff The Register covers Collateral Murder
• 2010-04-06: Mother Jones: Inside Wikleaks' Leak Factory Mother Jones piece on Wikileaks, with many arguments as to its veracity in the comments. "Julian Assange" commented, and there was some controversy over possible manipulation of the comment recommendation system. Updated Version from June
• 2010-04-07: FoxNews: Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting VideoFoxNews gives free reign to the military public relations on Collateral Murder
• 2010-04-08: BBC News: US 'reviewing' Iraq killing video posted on WikiLeaksBBC Coverage of Collateral Murder
• 2010-04-09: Herald Sun: Digital Economy Bill could see Google blocked, Wikileaks shut down Herald Sun covers the Digital Economy bill, and its possible implications for internet freedoms
• 2010-04-11: The Telegraph (UK): Wikileaks 'to release video of US strike on Afghan civilians'Report on 'imminent' release of a second "Collateral Murder" video. The video did not surface in the time frame proposed.
• 2010-04-13: The Marc Steiner Show: The Marc Steiner Show interviews Ethan McCord about Collateral Murder Two members of the company in the Wikileaks video speak out.
• 2010-04-13: Reuters: Gates assails Internet group over attack video Report on criticism of Collateral Murder by Defense Secretary Robert Gates
• 2010-04-13: Mother Jones: What the WikiLeaks Media Blitz Has Revealed About WikiLeaks Mother Jones follow up piece, in which defenses are offered to accusations of bias. Assange again comments. Comment stream informative.
• 2010-04-14: Scoop.co.nz: WikiLeaks cracks video of second US massacreScoop.co.nz reports on another US military massacre video, slated to be released soon after Collateral Murder, but not as yet released.
• 2010-04-16: The Guardian: WikiLeaks to release video of deadly US Afghan attack The Guardian reports on Wikileaks' Afghan version of Collateral Murder, in the wake of Collateral Murder
• 2010-04-16: The Sunday Times (UK): Profile: Julian Assange, the man behind Wikileaks
  They seek him here, they seek him there, but the founder of the whistleblowing website Wikileaks is as elusive as a modern-day pimpernel - Mostly a reworking of David Kushner's MoJo article.
• 2010-04-28: WSWS: US soldier in WikiLeaks massacre video: “I relive this every day” World Socialist Web Site Interview with Ethan McCord on Collateral Murder
• 2010-04-20: Wired: U.S. Soldier on 2007 Apache Attack: What I Saw WIRED's Kim Zetter interviews Ethan cCord, one of the men in the company in Collateral Murder

Archive - 2010-05 (May 2010)

Coverage and web record in May:

• 2010-05-20: Twitter: Adrian Lamo: Update - the director feels he doesn't deserve donations if you download Hackers Wanted. Please donate to Wikileaks. Adrian Lamo's tweet, allegedly read by Bradley Manning. Lamo claims it was this that led Manning to contact him.
• 2010-05-22: The Age: Keeper of Secrets. An in-depth interview with Julian Assange by Nikki Barrowclough.

Archive - 2010-06 (June 2010)

Coverage in June:

• 2010-06-02: Mother Jones: Click and Dagger: Inside WikiLeaks' Leak Factory Update of David Kushner's April character piece on Julian Assange.
• 2010-06-06: WIRED.COM: Threat Level: Kevin Poulsen: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe Wired breaks news about the arrest of alleged whistleblower Bradley Manning.
• 2010-06-06: Twitter: Wikileaks: Statement: Washington Post had Collateral murder video for over a year but DID NOT RELEASE IT it to the public. In a twitter comment, Wikileaks made an allegation that the WaPo would respond to 24 hours later.
• 2010-06-07: The New Yorker: No Secrets: Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency. Raffi Khatchadourian's in-depth profile of Julian Assange.
• 2010-06-07: Columbia Journalism Review: WaPo denies allegation it sat on WikiLeaks video Clint Hedler seeks a statement, and investigates the claims of the Washington Post that it never had footage of the Collateral Murder incident.
• 2010-06-07: Twitter: Wikileaks: Did Wired break journalism's sacred oath? Lamo&Poulson call themselves journalists.Echoes of Olshansky shopping Diaz? Wikileaks posts criticism of Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen's disclosure and portrayal of alleged whistleblower Bradley Manning, to which Manning would later respond.
• 2010-06-09: Yahoo: Informant in WikiLeaks case explains how it came to light Adrian Lamo courts press attention after disclosing his sources to the US government.
• 2010-06-10: WIRED.COM: Threat Level: Poulsen and Zetter: ‘I Can’t Believe What I’m Confessing to You’: The Wikileaks Chats Release of Lamo-Manning chat logs by Wired.
• 2010-06-10: WIRED.COM: Threat Level: Poulsen & Zetter: Suspected Wikileaks Source Described Crisis of Conscience Leading to Leaks
• 2010-06-10: The Daily Beast: Philip Shenon: Pentagon Manhunt 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.
• 2010-06-11: The New York Times: Obama Takes a Hard Line Against Leaks to Press The NYT examines Obama's record on whistleblower prosecutions.
• 2010-06-11: ITnews: Lamo speaks: Why I exposed the U.S. Army's leaky tap Adrian Lamo courts Australian media attention.
• 2010-06-11: Newsweek: Classified-Info Crackdown Newsweek examines Obama's record on whistleblower prosecutions.
• 2010-06-11: WIRED.COM: Threat Level: Poulsen & Zetter: Wikileaks Commissions Lawyers to Defend Alleged Army Source
• 2010-06-11: The Daily Beast: Samuel P. Jacobs: 'Assange Is in Some Danger' As feds hunt for Wikileaks’ Julian Assange in hopes of preventing him from publishing diplomatic secrets, Samuel P. Jacobs talks with Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg about why he should stay out of America—and why some things should be kept secret.
• 2010-06-12: iNewsWire: Adrian Lamo to Wikileaks: Alleged Spy is an Alleged Spy Adrian Lamo responds to criticisms for turning alleged whistleblower over to the US government.
• 2010-06-13: The Sacramento Bee: Famous Hacker finds himself infamous, in some quarters Adrian Lamo courts media attention.
• 2010-06-13: BoingBoing: Xeni Jardin: Video: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg at Personal Democracy Forum Some excellent comments on Xeni Jardin's post were subsequently linked to by Glenn Greenwald.
• 2010-06-13: The Times (UK): Inside the Pimpernel’s bunker. Julian Assange is obsessed with exposing secret while staying hidden himself. But now he has let his guard drop
• 2010-06-16: WIRED.COM: Threat Level: Poulsen & Zetter: 3 Weeks After Arrest, Still No Charges in Wikileaks Probe
  
• 2010-06-16: Whistleblower.org: Jess Radack: Jon Stewart Agrees on Drake Case; Wikileaks May Be the Only Option Left for Whistleblowers.Julian Assange Comments on Jess Radack's Whistleblower.org post.
• 2010-06-17: Glenn Greenwald's Blog: Email Exchange with Adrian Lamo Constitutional Lawyer and Journalist Glenn Greenwald exchanges emails with Adrian Lamo
• 2010-06-17: Democracy Now: Ellsberg, Wikileaks & Obama's record on Whistleblowers With Rumored Manhunt for Wikileaks Founder and Arrest of Alleged Leaker of Video Showing Iraq Killings, Obama Admin Escalates Crackdown on Whistleblowers of Classified Information
• 2010-06-17: An Open Letter of Reconciliation and Responsibility to the Iraqi People. Initiated by Josh Stieber and Ethan McCord.
• 2010-06-17: Independent (UK): Iceland rewrites law to create haven for investigative reporting Independent covers the IMMI.
• 2010-06-17: New York Times The Lede Blog: Victory for Wikileaks in Iceland's Parliament Documenting the Passing of the IMMI in Iceland.
• 2010-06-18: Salon.com: Glenn Greenwald: The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo Examining the strange facts around the WIRED.COM Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning case.
• 2010-06-18: Gawker Media: Adrian Chen: Wired, Wikileaks and the Hacker-Journalist Complex Adrian Chen calls for more transparency about how WIRED came by its material.
• 2010-06-18: Washinton Post Blog: SpyTalk with Jeff Stein: Wikileaks founder in hiding, fearful of arrest This video makes reference to Birgitta Jonsdottir mentioning another video "much worse" than the Collateral Murder video, which has yet to be released.
• 2010-06-18: Columbia Journalism Review: WikiLeaks Alleges Collusion:Wired Happy to set the timeline straight. Clint Hendler investates the allegations against Wired.com
• 2010-06-18: The Times (UK): Assange has passport confiscated The Australian founder of the whistleblower website Wikileaks had his passport confiscated by police when he arrived in Melbourne last week.
• 2010-06-21: LobbyPlanet: Listening to Wikileaks' Julian Assange at the European Parliament Comments on Assange's appearance at the EU Discussion on Freedom of Expression.
• 2010-06-21: The Guardian: Assange breaks cover, but will avoid america. US desperate to ask hacker what he knows of classified messages about Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
• 2010-06-29: Secrecy News: Steven Aftergood: Wikileaks Fails Due Diligence Test. Julian Assange responds in the comments.

Archive - 2010-07 (July 2010)

• 2010-07-14: The Guardian: Julian Assange: The Whistleblower. A profile and interview by Stephen Moss.
• 2010-07-20: The Washington Post: Top Secret America: National Security, Inc.. Part of the wide-ranging WaPo research project led by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin.
• 2010-07-21: The Washingtonian: Plugging the Leaks. Shane Harris reports on the Obama administration's record prosecution of whistleblowers.
• 2010-07-21: Strike The Root: Who Are the Real Terrorists?. Per Bylund on Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks and the language of the "war on terror."
• 2010-07-22: MichaelMoore.com: Feces, Urine, Blood, Smoke, and Something Indescribable. Ethan McCord remembers the Collateral Murder Apache attack.
• 2010-07-26: The New Yorker: WikiLeaks and the War. Amy Davidson on the release of the Afghan War Diaries.
• 2010-07-27: The Guardian: Afghanistan war logs: How US marines sanitised record of bloodbath. Report on the release of the Afghanistan war logs.
• 2010-07-27: Democracy Now!"WikiLeaks is Not One Person...We Are All the Threat". Hacker Magazine editor says WikiLeaks is "big".
• 2020-07-27: Balloon Juice: The Real Concern. Report on the release of the Afghanistan war logs.
• 2010-07-27: The Atlantic: Wikileaks and AfPak: What Everybody Knows. Report on the release of the Afghanistan war logs.
• 2010-07-27: Mother Jones: Wikileaks Afghan Documents and Me. By Adam Weinstein.
• 2010-07-27: Mother Jones: The Afghan Document Dump. Report on the release of the Afghanistan war logs.
• 2010-07-27: Mother Jones: Wikileaks Afghanistan Bombshell. Report on the release of the Afghanistan war logs.
• 2010-07-27: Newsweek: Exclusive: After Revealing Afghan War Secrets, Wikileaks Prepares Document Dumps on Iraq and Diplomacy. Report on the release of the Afghanistan war logs.
• 2010-07-27: Yahoo News: Leaked files indicate U.S. pays Afghanistan Media to run friendly stories PSYOPS. Report on the release of the Afghanistan war logs.
• 2010-07-27: Spyblog: Leak-o-nomy: The Economy of Wikileaks. Julian Assange interviewed by Stefan Mey.
• 2010-07-27: The New York Times: House Approves Measure to Pay for Combat Operations: Business as Usual after Wikileaks Afghan Leak. Report on the release of the Afghanistan war logs.
• 2010-07-29: El País: Entrevista: Julian Assange, Fundador de la web Wikileaks: "Damos buena información sin intereses empresariales ni políticos". Fernando Navarro interviews Julian Assange: "We provide good information without commercial or political interests."
• 2010-07-30: Knowledge Empire: Wikileaks and the Pursuit of Truth: Knowledge Takes Over in 2010. "The revolution taking place is centered on justice, truth and freedom."
• 2010-07-30: Wired: Wikileaks posts mysterious 'insurance' file WikiLeaks reports on the encrypted insurance file, which you can download here (BitTorrent link).

Archive - 2010-08 (August 2010)

• 2010-08-02: Salon: Project Vigilant and the government/corporate destruction of privacy. Glenn Greenwald looks at Project Vigilant, the surveillance project that Adrian Lamo has been involved with.
• 2010-08-02: Democracy Now!Andrew Bacevich on the Afghanistan War. "The president lacks the guts to get out," says the military historian.
• 2010-08-03: Military Families Speak Out: Veterans and Military Families Say Pentagon Statements on WikiLeaks Aim to Cloud Real Issue. Press release by MFSO addressing the Pentagon's reaction to the WikiLeaks release of the Afghan war logs.
• 2010-08-05: Salon: Re-visiting Project Vigilant Part two of Glenn Greenwald's analysis of Project Vigilant.
• 2010-08-07: Townhall: WikiLeaks Afghan Papers Killing Obama. Dick Morris and Eileen McGann look at Democratic disaffection with Obama after the continuing involvement in Afghanistan, in the light of the WikiLeaks war logs release.
• 2010-08-09: Cato Institute: The Digital Surveillance State: Vast, Secret, and Dangerous. Lead essay by Glenn Greenwald on the post-9/11 expansion of surveillance in the United States.
• 2010-08-10: The Daily Beast: U.S. Urges Allies to Crack Down on WikiLeaks. Philip Shenon reports on the Obama administration's pressure on allied governments to open criminal probes against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
• 2010-08-11: CounterPunch: A War on WikiLeaks? Maximilian Forte analyzes the Pentagon's strategy of intimidation towards WikiLeaks.
• 2010-08-11: The Washington Post: Pentagon: Undisclosed Wikileaks documents 'potentially more explosive'. Ellen Nakashima reports on the Pentagon's evaluation of the 15,000 Afghan war documents that WikiLeaks has not released yet.
• 2010-08-13: Wired: Cyber War Against WikiLeaks? Good Luck with That. Kevin Poulsen looks at why the US government's plans to shut down WikiLeaks likely won't work.
• 2010-08-16: The Local (Sweden): Assange: Swedish press freedoms 'most proven'Julian Assange, the Australian founder of whistleblower website WikiLeaks, has praised Swedish legislation protecting the freedom of the press but says that other countries, such as Iceland, are also working to improve their legal framework.
• 2010-08-19: New Statesman: Why WikiLeaks must be protected. "The case of the Afghanistan war logs and the hounding of Julian Assange prove that there’s never been greater need to speak truth to power than today," writes John Pilger.
• 2010-08-19: AlterNet: How Many Lives Will WikiLeaks Save? Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern on the power of transparency to save lives by avoiding or shortening wars.
• 2010-08-20: Salon: Why won't the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents? Glenn Greenwald debunks the Pentagon's claim that WikiLeaks did not contact them for assisting in the redaction of the Afghan war diaries.
• 2010-08-20: The Agonist: Mea Culpa. Sean Paul Kelly discovers that the Pentagon wasn't telling the truth and WikiLeaks was, with regards to the Afghan war diary redaction.
• 2010-08-22: A Moving World: Why Did Swedish Prosecutors Break Their Own Policy in the Assange Case? "So far, the explanations offered by the Prosecution Authority do not even begin to explain an apparent failure to follow their own policies. All this, needless to say, doesn't even touch on the remarkable flimsiness of the case."
• 2010-08-31: Salon: The "nobody could have known" excuse and Iraq. "The predominant attribute of American elites is a refusal to take responsibility for any failures," writes Glenn Greenwald.
• 2010-08-31: Balloon Juice: My Iraq War Retrospective. Former war supporter John Cole says he "was wrong about everything" with regards to the Iraq war.

Archive - 2010-09 (September 2010)

• 2010-09-01: A Moving World: Swedish Authorities Reverse Themselves Again in Assange Case. "If someone wanted to deliberately attack and smear an opponent, this is precisely what they would want to see."
• 2010-09-03: Poynter Online: AP: 'Combat in Iraq is not over, and we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is'. The AP's standards editor won't toe the White House line.
• 2010-09-14: Courage to Resist / Common Dreams: Daniel Ellsberg Calls for the Release of Wikileaks “Whistleblower” Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. Press release for the kick-off on Sept. 16 at Oakland’s Humanist Hall of nation-wide series of support events for Manning in 18 US cities by Ellsberg, US Army Col. Ann Wright (ret.), a former US diplomat to Afghanistan and Ray McGovern, senior CIA analyst (ret.).
• 2010-09-15: The Nation: WikiLeaks and Hacktivist Culture. Peter Ludlow on a decades-long movement whose time has come.
• 2010-09-27: The New York Times: U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet. Charlie Savage on proposals by US federal law enforcement and national security officials to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.
• 2010-09-27: Editors' Weblog: Protection of sources: bill introduced in Australia. Parliament member and former whistleblower Andrew Wilkie has proposed a new law that would allow journalists to conceal the identity of their sources. Attorney General Robert McClelland said the government will support the bill.
• 2010-09-29: The Nation: Is Obama's Use of State Secrets Privilege the New Normal? Ryan Devereaux writes: "The Obama administration has invoked the state secrets privilege for the second time in less than a month — most recently in an effort to shut down discussion on the targeted killing of a US civilian who has not been charged of any crime".

Archive - 2010-10 (October 2010)

• 2010-10-01: PBS: Daniel Ellsberg: The most dangerous man in America. Introduction and trailer to the new PBS documentary.
• 2010-10-06: Salon: Times Square bomber: Cause and effect in the War on Terror. Glenn Greenwald on how the US "actions in the Muslim world -- ostensibly undertaken to combat Terrorism -- do more than anything else to spur Terrorism and ensure its permanent continuation."
• 2010-10-15: Los Angeles Times: WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if? FBI special agent Coleen Rowley and former FAA special agent and whistleblower Bogdan Dzakovic on how WikiLeaks could have averted the 9/11 attacks by giving frustrated investigators an outlet to make their findings public.
• 2010-10-17: Salon: How propaganda is disseminated: WikiLeaks Edition. Glenn Greenwald's point-by-point analysis on "how the U.S. government and American media jointly disseminate propaganda."
• 2010-10-18: Reuters: Pentagon cautions news media on WikiLeaks documents. "News organizations should be cautioned not to facilitate the leaking of classified documents with this disreputable organization known as WikiLeaks," Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan said.
• 2010-10-22: Fabius Maximus: The US government successfully smears Wikileaks, while America sleeps. "US government operations grind down Wikileaks and its best known member, Julian Assange. All smoothly done. But such success requires our disinterest and passivity. Fortunately for our rulers, these are notable characteristics of most 21st century Americans."
• 2010-10-23: The New York Times: WikiLeaks Founder Gets Support in Rebuking U.S. on Whistle-Blowers. Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg joins Julian Assange at Iraq War Logs release press conference.
• 2010-10-23: El País: Cómo navegar por los 'papeles de Irak' (How to navigate the Iraq War Logs). El País guide to WikiLeaks' "Diarydig" app.
• 2010-10-23: Juanelo: WikiLeaks cartoon on the Pentagon reaction to the Iraq War Logs release.
• 2010-10-24: El País: Cita secreta con el hombre que hace temblar al Pentágono (A secret meeting with the man who makes the Pentagon tremble). An in-depth interview with Julian Assange by Joseba Elola.
• 2010-10-24: El País: ANÁLISIS: Los 'papeles' del conflicto iraquí: La rutina del horror (Analysis: The Iraq conflict documents: The normalcy of horror). Miguel Gonzáles on the Iraq War Logs.
• 2010-10-24: El País: Los crímenes de Irak se revelan al mundo (The crimes in Iraq are revealed to the world). Walter Oppenheimer on the revelations in the Iraq War Logs.
• 2010-10-24: Roads to Iraq: WikiLeaks documents in the Arab media. English translations of Arab media coverage of Iraq War Logs release.
• 2010-10-24: The First Post: WikiLeaks latest: Assange has helped serve the truth. "What Assange has achieved is to shift the axis of the information war by the range and depth of his revelations. And authority seems unable to absorb this," writes Robert Fox
• 2010-10-25: Der Spiegel: A 'Dumb' War: Taking Stock of the Iraq Invasion. A three-part analysis by Alexander Smoltczyk and Bernhard Zand.
• 2010-10-25: Truthout: Now We Know. William Rivers Pitt on the undeniable proof that the WikiLeaks Iraq Logs brought about what many had suspected about the war.
• 2010-10-26: Huffington Post: Julian Assange: God of War Chaz Pazienza on the Iraq War Logs. Considerable corrections in the comments.
• 2010-10-26: Arab News: WikiLeaks affair: Why the truth matters. Osama Al Sharif on the significance of the Iraq War Logs release.
• 2010-10-27: The Nation: WikiLeaks and war spending. Laura Flanders: "The free press failed this weekend, with the Sunday talk shows ignoring the Iraq War Logs in order to talk horse race strategy for the upcoming elections."
• 2010-10-28: Die Tageszeitung: "Die Medien sind ein Desaster". German version of the El País interview with Julian Assange.
• 2010-10-28: The Hindu: More Iraq Lies Exposed. The Hindu editorial on the WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs revelations.
• 2010-10-28: The Intelligence: Ist Julian Assange ein Verräter? (Is Julian Assange a traitor?). "Wikileaks deserves full respect, support and protection. Australia has, by following the demands of the United States, enacted the betrayal of a citizen."
• 2010-10-28: BTC News: Celebrate 'Turn Yourself In To The FBI Day'. Weldon Berger on the latest censorship attempts and proposals against WikiLeaks.
• 2010-10-28: Foreign Policy: Popping the Military's Classification Bubble. "The vast majority of the WikiLeaks documents on Afghanistan shouldn't have been classified. I should know, I wrote some of them," writes Scott Bohlinger.
• 2010-10-28: BBC: US soldier on aftermath of WikiLeaks Apache attack . The BBC interviews former soldier and current IVAW activist Ethan McCord about the Apache attack and how what he saw impacted his life. (video included)
• 2010-10-28: The Vibe: Wikileaks Iraq War Logs – the first findings. "The publication of the US incidence military reports by Wikileaks brings some harsh truths to our attention," writes Georg Hoehne.
• 2010-10-29: AFP: Arab League urges action on WikiLeaks revelations. "These documents and what they have unveiled... constitute a crime equivalent to crimes against humanity and violations against the Iraqi people," said Ahmed ben Helli, the Cairo-based organisation's deputy security general.
• 2010-10-29: Antiwar / Tribune Media Services: Defying A Superpower. Robert Koehler applauds WikiLeaks for the bravery to bring the truth about Iraq into the light.
• 2010-10-29: The Atlantic: On 'Treason' and Julian Assange. James Fallows points out that foreign citizens can't by definition commit 'treason' against the US, as some have accused.
• 2010-10-29: Harper's: The Washington Post and WikiLeaks. Scott Horton debunks the WaPo's claim about the Iraq War Logs that "we've heard this all before."
• 2010-10-29: Salon: Jonah Goldberg wonders why Jason Bourne hasn't killed Julian Assange. Alex Pareene on the latest neocon fantasy.
• 2010-10-29: Salon: The wretched mind of the American authoritarian. "Decadent governments often spawn a decadent citizenry." Glenn Greenwald on Jonah Goldberg's "wondering" why Julian Assange hasn't been assassinated yet.
• 2010-10-29: CounterPunch: Xbox vs. WikiLeaks John Grant on Bradley Manning and Julian Assange: "They’re sticking their necks way out for us. We need to support them."
• 2010-10-30: American Journalism Review: Spreading Leaks Before WikiLeaks. Mark Feldstein: "In the 1970s, the course of greatest impact was Jack Anderson's column. Today, it is WikiLeaks. The lesson then, and now, is that when mainstream journalism doesn't uncover abuses, more radical muckraking activists will, sometimes influencing events in ways politicians and generals do not anticipate."
• 2010-10-30: La Vanguardia: ¿Quién teme a Wikileaks? (Who Is Afraid of WikiLeaks?). Manuel Castells on the impact of WikiLeaks, the Iraq War Logs and the establishment's reaction.
• 2010-10-31: Huffington Post: Let's Rally to Restore Peace. Marjorie Cohn on America's forgotten wars and the lack of media reactions to the WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs revelations.
• 2010-10-31: Boston Globe: US must accept responsibility. Globe editorial urges accountability for torture and abuse revealed in WikiLeaks disclosures.
• 2010-10-31: Zero Anthropology: WikiLeaks's Iraq War Logs: The US Goverment's Crisis of Legitimacy. Maximilian Forte on the Pentagon and State Department's reaction to the release of the Iraq War Logs.
• 2010-10-31: New Europe: Assuaging Assange: Taking WikiLeaks Seriously Report on the Iraq War Logs and the EU Parliament's ALDE Group (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) intention to raise the issue of torture and abuse at the EU-US Lisbon summit in November.

Archive - 2010-11 (November 2010)

Coverage in November 2010:

• 2010-11-01: The Big Issue: WikiLeaks founder is 'hero', says Afghanistan veteran and antiwar activist Joe Glenton.
• 2010-11-02: World Socialist: “The Iraq documents give a picture of the war that has been hidden until now” Interview with WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson.
• 2010-11-02: Periodismo Humano: Wikileaks, el Pentágono y la información, II. Part two of a series by war correspondent Olga Rodríguez.
• 2010-11-02: Huffington Post: Wikileaks Iraq documents raise critical questions. Human Rights First's international legal director Gabor Rona on the abuses revealed in the Iraq War Logs.
• 2010-11-03: Reason Gone Mad: "Enough About the War!" Bill Schein does a satirical take on the deafening silence of the US conversation about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• 2010-11-03: Tehran Times: Leaking the Truth. Chandra Muzaffar, President of JUST, writes in defense of WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning and Seymour Hersh.
• 2010-11-03: Svenska Dagbladet: Assange vill ha skadestånd. Julian Assange tells SvD he intends to sue the Swedish government for malpractice over handling of investigation.
• 2010-11-04: Open Democracy: Iraq, War and WikiLeaks: The Real Story. The tranche of American military documents released by the WikiLeaks project contains a wealth of detail about the coalition's indifference to civilian life. But the materials also tell a deeper story of “how” war has killed in Iraq, says Martin Shaw.
• 2010-11-04: Les Inrocks: Rencontre avec Julian Assange dans le bunker de WikiLeaks (A meeting with Julian Assange in the WikiLeaks bunker). Interview and teaser video for ARTE's new WikiLeaks documentary.
• 2010-11-04: El Universal: Wikileaks anuncia que revelará más documentos secretos. Report from Geneva press conference.
• 2010-11-04: Reuters: WikiLeaks urges U.S. to fully examine abuses Report from Geneva press conference.
• 2010-11-04: TSR: Julian Assange compte demander l'asile en Suisse. Report from Geneva press conference, including video interview with Julian Assange on TSR.
• 2010-11-04: 20 Minuten: Assange geisselt US-Haltung zu Folterungen. Report from Geneva press conference.
• 2010-11-04: Le Matin: Visite sous haute surveillance. A report from Julian Assange's visit to Geneva.
• 2010-11-05: Reuters: WikiLeaks urges U.S. to fully examine abuses. Report from Geneva press conference.
• 2010-11-05: TSR: Julian Assange compte demander l'asile en Suisse. Report from Geneva press conference, including a video interview with Julian Assange.
• 2010-11-05: The Telegraph: Wikileaks says US must open up. Report from Geneva press conference
• 2010-11-05: The Guardian: Iraqis take fight for 'torture' inquiry to high court. Public Interest Lawyers group, acting for more than 140 Iraqi civilians who allege they suffered torture and degrading treatment at the hands of British soldiers and interrogators, go to the High Court seeking a wide-ranging public inquiry.
• 2010-11-06: L'Express: WikiLeaks: La guerre contre le secret, une enquête de Luc Hermann et Paul Moreira. Review of the new ARTE Reportage documentary on WikiLeaks.
• 2010-11-08: Al Jazeera: No more rage against the machine. Mark LeVine on the public's lack of anger at the horrors revealed in the latest Wikileaks Iraq war logs.
• 2010-11-08: El Modernísimo: ¿El regreso de Estados Unidos al multilateralismo en materia de Derechos Humanos? A report on the UN UPR session on US human rights, and Julian Assange's conference at the UN on this occasion.
• 2010-11-09: Global Times: The Price of Truth is Always Worth Paying". An interview with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and Iraq veteran Josh Stieber about WikiLeaks and the Iraq War Logs.
• 2010-11-09: MediaLens: WikiLeaks: The Smear and the Denial, Part II. The continuation of an in-depth analysis of media reactions to WikiLeaks.
• 2010-11-09: Marianne: Wikileaks, qui veut la peau de Julian Assange? (Who Wants Julian Assange's head?) Flore Vasseur examines the media reaction to WikiLeaks.
• 2010-11-10: TIME magazine: Who Will Be TIME's 2010 Person of the Year?. Julian Assange is on the list. (And while you're there, vote for him in TIME's online poll!)
• 2010-11-10: Honolulu Weekly: Nixon's Ghosts. An interview with celebrated Pentagon Papers whisleblower Daniel Ellsberg.
• 2010-11-11: Consortium News: WikiLeaks Ban or Global Secrecy Act? David H. Kerby on Sen John Ensign's (R-NV) proposal to amend the Espionage Act and its implications.
• 2010-11-11: Truthout: The Things That Come Apart in War. Vietnam veteran Davidson Loehr on the realities of war and the WikiLeaks revelations.
• 2010-11-11: Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin: Die gefährlichste Webseite der Welt (The Most Dangerous Website in the World). A 3-page special on WikiLeaks.
• 2010-11-11: Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights: Rapport de visite de M. Julian Assange en Suisse: Le témoin qui dérange, and Le fondateur de WikiLeaks à Genève, invité par l'IIPJDH. Two reports from Julian Assange's visit to Geneva in early November.
• 2010-11-12: Zero Anthropology: Wikileaks Roundup: Man of the Year, Assange the Swede, Blocked at Harvard, Telling the Truth. Maximilian Forte looks at "a short selection of Wikileaks-related articles from the past week or so that range from the amusing to the distressing."
• 2010-11-12: NY Law School: Wikileaks Has Committed No Crime The messenger shooters certainly don't seem able to find one.
• 2010-11-12: AFP: WikiLeaks registers company in Iceland. The new firm appears to be WikiLeaks' first known legal presence in a country.
• 2010-11-12: Army Times: 'Pentagon Papers' leaker to speak. Daniel Ellsberg will talk about standing up to government secrecy and WikiLeaks on Saturday in Honolulu.
• 2010-11-14: Noticiero Digital: Julian Assange, el derecho de conocer la verdad (Julian Assange and the right to know the truth). Simón Alberto Consalvi thinks that "No revolution will be more powerful and have more adherents than the revolution in transparency."
• 2010-11-15: Die Tageszeitung: Das Ideal der Selbstaufklärung (The Ideal of Self-Enlightenment). Peter Monnerjahn on journalism, WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs coverage, false objectivity, and why service to society requires us to take a stand.
• 2010-11-15: Tom Spender: WikiLeaks Puts ICC Credibility on the Line. Afghanistan war logs leaked by Wikileaks could eventually be used in a war crimes trial with Americans in the dock, according to Luis Moreno-Ocampo, prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
• 2010-11-15: In These Times: War News Unfit for Print. Andrew Oxford looks at how US media reporting of the WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs has been strikingly different from the rest of the world.
• 2010-11-16: Village Magazine: Learning to like WikiLeaks. Dara McHugh on shield laws and why whistleblowers are important.
• 2010-11-16: Reuters: Interview: UN expert urges full U.S. torture investigation. Incoming UN rapporteur for torture says "the United States has a duty to investigate every act of torture. Unfortunately, we haven't seen much in the way of accountability."
• 2010-11-17: TruthDig: Wars Went MIA from Midterm Debates. Jon Dillingham on the absence from the US public debate of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• 2010-11-17: Intellectual Conservative: Does Julian Assange deserve to die? Vasko Kohlmayer takes on Jonah Goldberg's infamous op-ed: "Every morally sane person must reply in the negative."
• 2010-11-18: JTurn: Next Up: The “War on Journalism”? Jonathan Lundqvist writes an analysis of war in the 21st century, the relationship between the media and the military, the internet as a new domain for warfare and the role of WikiLeaks and the free press.
• 2010-11-18: Svenska Dagbladet: Julian Assange överklagar häktning (Julian Assange appeals detention ruling). SvD talks to Swedish attorney Björn Hurtig and prosecutor Marianne Ny.
• 2010-11-18: Index on Censorship: Index on Censorship responds to Julian Assange allegations. "We are extremely concerned at the apparent conduct of the investigators. Anyone concerned about free speech and human rights will be alarmed."
• 2010-11-18: Death and Taxes: The Assassination of Julian Assange?"Will this “character assassination” once again stand in for actual assassination?" of an inconvenient person, asks Alex Moore.
• 2010-11-18: Deutsche Welle: Swedish court orders arrest of WikiLeaks founder DW reports on warrant request approval.
• 2010-11-18: Svenska Dagbladet: Julian Assange kommer att efterlysas. Report on Stockholm District Court granting warrant request.
• 2010-11-18: The Guardian: WikiLeaks founder faces Swedish detention. News report an a short overview of the case so far.
• 2010-11-18: VG Nett: Vil etterlyse WikiLeaks-gründer internasjonalt (International warrant sought for WikiLeaks founder). Report and interview with Julian Assange's Swedish attorney, Björn Hurtig.
• 2010-11-18: Svenska Dagbladet: Julian Assange begärs häktad (Arrest sought for Julian Assange). One of the first reports of the Swedish prosecutor's office latest game move.
• 2010-11-19: The Voice of Russia: WikiLeaks case – state interests or democratic values?. "According to Alexander Perendzhiyev, Deputy Chairman of the Association of military political analysts, it is unlikely that the charges against Assange are coincidence."
• 2010-11-19: Arab News: A Different War. "We have heard of “war on terror” but this is “war on one who exposes crimes”," writes Sam Silva.
• 2010-11-19: Channel 4: Julian Assange to fight order for arrest. The WikiLeaks founder is to challenge a Swedish prosecutor's "bizarre and exotic" request for an international arrest warrant, his lawyer Mark Stephens tells Channel 4 News.
• 2010-11-19: The Voice of Russia: The Voice of Russia: WikiLeaks, Part 1. Full-blown protection. Ignat Kulagin looks at one of the cases disclosed in the Iraq War Logs, where US troops fired on surrendering Iraqis.
• 2010-11-19: OWNI: [Live] L’avocat d’Assange dénonce une procédure “illégale”. The OWNI team are live-blogging the events and conducting their own research. Includes comments from attorney Mark Stephens, Interpol and the Pentagon.
• 2010-11-19: Le Monde: WikiLeaks : M. Assange fait appel de son mandat d'arrêt en Suède (Mr. Assange appeals against arrest warrant). Björn Hurtig tells AFP he has filed an appeal against the warrant. An appelate court will be expected to make a decision relatively quickly.
• 2010-11-19: AFP/ABC News: WikiLeaks boss to challenge warrant. Julian Assange's attorney Mark Stephens tells AFP that an appeal will be filed.
• 2010-11-20: ABC (Paraguay): Wikileaks: ¿qué importa al periodismo? (WikiLeaks: why does it matter for journalism?). ABC talks to a number of prominent Paraguayan journalists who agree that WikiLeaks serves both as an important source and an example for journalism.
• 2010-11-20: IT Wire: Assange pokes a tiger, tiger pokes back. "Julian Assange has done a lot to annoy authorities through his website WikiLeaks.[...] All of this way well be seen as 'tiger poking' by many authorities," writes David Heath.
• 2010-11-21: Financial Express: In Search of Truth. "Recall the extensive lies and twisting of facts that it resorted to prior to the invasion of Iraq. One might, however, say now that the truth has finally prevailed with the exposition of the facts from the originally recorded US files on Iraq by Wikileaks," writes Shamsher Chowdhury.
• 2010-11-22: Financial Times: Warrant for WikiLeaks founder condemned. Interview with Mark Stephens, Julian Assange's UK lawyer.
• 2010-11-22: LA Progressive: Swedish Justice on Trial in WikiLeaks Case. Tom Hayden on the Assange case: "The first line of defense will likely be in Sweden, where the state’s core identity could be on trial."
• 2010-11-22: Tercera Información: Continúa la persecución contra el fundador de Wikileaks. Aura Ribeiro thinks that someone is trying to silence Julian Assange.
• 2010-11-22: Pravda: Aussie man Assange and Swedish sex scandal. "Here is a question: Did the Australian really commit unlawful acts, or was it a setup of the U.S. intelligence services?"
• 2010-11-23: International Zeitschrift: Casualties of War: Including Civilians, Truth, and the Rule of Law. A remarkable analysis piece from law professor Ian Townsend-Gault on the political underpinnings of the Iraq invasion, the WikiLeaks revelations, and the folly of nations at war.
• 2010-11-23: The Telegraph: WikiLeaks release: Timeline of the key WikiLeaks revelations. John Swaine looks at nine WikiLeaks releases, including the Guantanamo Bay operating procedures, the Trafigura report, 'Climategate' emails, war logs and more.
• 2010-11-23: El Mundo: El destape en periodismo. Hernan Mira on investigative journalism and why WikiLeaks provides a much needed service in a free society.
• 2010-11-23: The Voice of Russia: WikiLeaks, Part 2: Extracts of GI reports. Ignat Kulagin's second installment looking at cases from the Iraq War Logs delves into civilian death incidents.
• 2010-11-24: Menos 25: Lluís Bassets: “El periodismo en papel, como negocio a gran escala, dentro de diez años no existirá”. Lluís Bassets, deputy director of El País, thinks that WikiLeaks is "great news for journalism."
• 2010-11-24: Uptown Almanac: More WikiLeaks Street Art Going Up on Valencia. Kevin Montgomery reports that the street artist known as "Sandwich" created a new display from "Collateral Murder" video stills.
• 2010-11-24: Reuters: Exclusive: Corruption charges to feature in WikiLeaks release. "Classified U.S. diplomatic cables reporting corruption allegations against foreign governments and leaders are expected in official documents that WikiLeaks plans to release soon, sources said on Wednesday."
• 2010-11-24: Bloomberg: Pentagon Warns House, Senate Defense Panels of More WikiLeaks Documents. Tony Capaccio writes that "The Pentagon warned the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services Committees that the website WikiLeaks.org “intends to release several hundred thousand” classified U.S. State Department cables as soon as Nov. 26," in conjunction with The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel.
• 2010-11-25: NRK: USA advarer om nytt Wikileaks-slipp fredag. "'The Foreign Ministry has been contacted by the United States on Wikileaks' forthcoming publication. We can not go into details on the content of the conversation,' the Foreign Ministry told politiken.dk.
• 2010-11-25: Ha'aretz: Israel, U.S. tense as WikiLeaks sets to release classified bilateral communiqués. "The United States Embassy in Tel Aviv has informed the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem that the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks was planning on releasing hundreds of thousands of American diplomatic cables, some of which might deal with Israel-America relations."
• 2010-11-25: CBC: WikiLeaks: Should sensitive diplomatic files be released? 87% of readers answer "yes" in CBC's poll.
• 2010-11-25: Politiken: Enhedslisten: WikiLeaks-stifter skal bo i København. Denmark's Unity alliance would like to extend Julian Assange an invitation to live in Copenhagen, as part of the Refuge Network initiative for persecuted writers.
• 2010-11-25: Sky News: Washington Braced For Millions Of Leaks. "Sky News understands the US ambassador to the UK, Louis Susman, has been seen going into Downing Street and the Foreign Office for what one source called 'contingency planning'."
• 2010-11-25: The Globe and Mail: U.S. warns Ottawa about fallout from pending WikiLeaks release. "The U.S. government has notified Ottawa that the WikiLeaks website is preparing to release sensitive U.S. diplomatic files that could damage American relations with allies around the world."
• 2010-11-25: Sydney Morning Herald: US briefs Canberra on secret files. "Australia has been briefed by the US on the imminent release by WikiLeaks of a huge tranche of diplomatic cables that sources say contain allegations of corruption and embarrassing behaviour by politicians worldwide."
• 2010-07-30: News.com.au: Four weeks on the run with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. An interview with SBS reporter Mark Davis, who did the Inside WikiLeaks documentary.

2012-03-14 Transcript: Julian Assange in War on Drugs debate

Transcript of Julian Assange speaking during the Versus War on Drugs Debate, 13 March 2012.
Full video of the debate is available on Versus Debates' official Youtube channel.

[Beginning at 1:37:12]

Geoffrey Robertson: Well, what we need obviously and what politicians need is more information. Ask for information, go to WikiLeaks. Are you there, Julian Assange?

Julian Assange: I am, Geoffrey.

Geoffrey Robertson: How are you hanging out?

Julian Assange: Well, I'm here in some secret hotel room, not far from where I'm under house arrest.

Geoffrey Robertson: Right. And not for drugs. Let me ask you, what can you tell us from WikiLeaks cables about how the War on Drugs puts pressure on countries not to decriminalize, not to end imprisonment.

Julian Assange: Look Geoffrey, any situation which has clearly come to an impasse where there's a clear failure needs experimentation in trials and limited models around the world. And there have been steps to do that. But we see that the United States, though its diplomatic core, has been exercising its force to prevent those sort of trials. We see that sort of situation with Libya, with the interaction with the DA in 63 countries.

Geoffrey Robertson: The drugs enforcement authority part of the US surveillance, I think it's got offices in 63 countries, hasn't it?

Julian Assange: Yes, in 63 countries and we even see cables from Paraguay showing how the DA agreed to allow the Paraguayan Government to use DA surveillance facilities to surveil some of its political opponents in Paraguay.

Geoffrey Robertson: And, as far as you're concerned, how does it come down for you? Is there a question of individual rights here, of the right to change your own mind, to decide what you put in your own body? The right to decide how you'll think and imagine?

Julian Assange: Well I think we must start at basic principles and basic principles say that we, as individuals, have a right to our own self-determination. We have the right to freedom of thought. We have the right to freedom of speech. And provided that we do not engage in some sort of violence to others, then our rights to do what we will with our own thoughts and our own body are sacrosanct. And the state should not be interfering with those rights. In order to keep our freedom of thought we should have the right to control our own mental states. And that gives some people extra creativity and that is something that we need all across the world.

Geoffrey Robertson: And so the 166 million people who take cannabis, according to Mr. Costa's report, they have a certain basic liberty to decide how they're going to think and imagine, and what drugs they're going to use for relaxation, for pleasure, perhaps to reduce pain.

Julian Assange: Well Geoffrey, we should look at marijuana as a good example. I mean, this is a drug that is about as addictive as potatoes, and yet it is being swept up into this so-called war on drugs. We have to remember, we really do have a war on drugs, and like all wars it is a racket. It is a racket which has bought up huge industries that fight and lobby to keep the money flowing.

Geoffrey Robertson: Richard Branson, last words from you. Is civil liberty part of the demand to end the war on drugs? Part of the reason?

Richard Branson: Absolutely.

[...]

Eliot Spitzer: I want to go to Peter Hitchens because Peter was so effective at winning over the audience earlier this evening. So Peter... But I want you to make and close tonight, and Lord Blair, I'm sorry we're just running out of time, but Peter make the moral argument. This is not just a matter of mechanistic policy, there is a moral imperative from your view, what is it?

Peter Hitchens: Well, the main point is that taking drugs is itself wrong and that is why they are illegal. And one of the reasons we don't address this is because of the extreme selfishness of our society in which so many people imagine that their own pleasure trumps everything else. Julian Assange said that he was sovereign over his own body. Well maybe he doesn't have anybody who cares about him. But if your family has to put up with you after you've destroyed your mental health or in some other way deeply damaged yourself by taking drugs, then you and they will discover that you are not an island and you have responsibilities to other people. And if there is no other force apart from the law which will deter you from taking that semi-suicidal step, then the law needs to be there. That's the main and fundamental point. The other things I hear Sir Richard Branson talking about the taking of drugs, and particularly of that especially dangerous drug cannabis, sordidly promoted as safe and soft, as a freedom comparable apparently to the freedoms of thought, speech, and assembly, which make this and others a free country. How can that be? The purpose of drugs is to befuddle us, to cloud our brains, to make us passive. If we are discontented with the society in which we live, surely it is utterly wrong and immoral to turn away from that, to dope ourselves into passivity, to make ourselves perfect fodder for dictators, despots, and propagandists, rather than to criticize, change, and reform the society which we find repulsive. And I turn to people on the other side and I mean to be polite to them, and I say the politest thing that I say about them, is that they are defeatists, dupes, and profoundly irresponsible. And I very much hope that their message fails and fails and fails again.

Eliot Spitzer: Thank you all.

Emily Maitlis: Thank you very much. We are going to bring you the result now, I think. Is that right? We're not going to bring you the result yet, we're going to have a little bit more free-flowing conversation, and I think the best place to pick up is... Julian Assange. What do you make of Peter Hitchens' statement that taking drugs is wrong and that is why they're illegal, if you're still there.

Julian Assange: Well, I was just about to say, I couldn't believe that you gave that twat the last word. But apparently, it's not so. Look, there's a certain form of Calvinism about the different types of drugs that we see. For example, nicotine which makes one work harder and work faster and burn out faster, that's perfectly legal. So is coffee, it is perfectly legal and makes one work faster and harder. But those drugs which make one relax or make one more imaginative, those drugs are made illegal. And that's some Western, European Calvinism. Of course, we can all see the problems with severe heroin addiction, but we can all see the solutions so far have not worked. So we need a time of sensible, scientific, regulatory experimentation to see what works and what doesn't work, and if it works in one place perhaps it can be cloned in another. At the moment we have an enormous drug war lobby, that is the fact, billions of dollars spent every year by that lobby pushing its desires to keep the drug war going. As a result, corrupting bureaucracy and producing restrictions apply which causes cartels which themselves corrupt other countries near drug suppliers.

2012-03-14 Transcript: Julian Assange on ABC Radio 09/03/12

Interview originally aired on ABC RadioNational Breakfast, 9 March 2012 at 7:33AM.
Audio is available at the ABC website.

Fran Kelly: While no formal charges have been made, but Julian Assange has waged a year-long battle in Britain to avoid extradition to Sweden to be questioned by authorities about sexual assault allegations made by two women back in 2010. The WikiLeaks founder now awaits the judgement of the British Supreme Court to his appeal against a lower court's decision to uphold the validity of the Swedish arrest warrant. Quite apart from concerns about how his case may be handled within Sweden, Julian Assange also fears extradition from Sweden to the United States. And giving credence to some of those concerns, late last month a confidential internal email from within the U.S. intelligence community revealed that American authorities have a sealed indictment of conspiracy charges waiting for Julian Assange. And the WikiLeaks founder joins you now from Britain: Julian Assange, good morning.

Julian Assange: Good morning, Fran.

Fran Kelly: Julian Assange, how soon do you expect that ruling from the Supreme Court to come down?

Julian Assange: It could come down any moment. The Supreme Court told us it would not come down before the 4th of March, and we're already there, so any time this month we're expecting the ruling.

Fran Kelly: And, if you lose what would happen? Will you be immediately detained and under what conditions? What do you know?

Julian Assange: If we lose then formally we have some seven days to file an appeal with the EU. However, the EU never issues injunctions in relation to inter-EU extraditions. It's the view of the European Court of Human Rights: you can sort it out at the other end, given that you are already in the EU. So, essentially we have about ten days after the Supreme Court decision is made and then I will be seized and taken by force to Sweden. Now, that's a situation which you would think wouldn't be too concerning, given that no charges have been laid, and the sort-of investigation has already been dropped multiple times. But since the London Indepedent has revealed that the U.S. and Sweden have been in informal talks about onwards extradition since the 8th of December and recently we have seen this information about an indictment in the Grand Jury proceedings in Washington for espionage. And that, presumably, would then be activated in Sweden. It's not to say that matters here in the UK are safe either, however. The UK/U.S. extradition treaty is quite favorable to the United States; it does not need to present evidence. So every day that it sort of ticks by here in the UK, we also run the risk that the U.S. warrant will be served on me in the UK.

Fran Kelly: Have you had any indication from authorities in the UK that there are negotiations or talks with the U.S. about that? Or that that is underway?

Julian Assange: None directly in relation to the UK. However, we have tried to get out information under the Freedom of Information Act within the UK and it has been blocked under the basis that it might interfere with the diplomatic relations of the UK and another nation. Normally that information should be revealed. There is information there. It is not being released under the basis that it has something to do with the UK's international diplomacy.

Fran Kelly: So is this why you're talking now? Are you afraid this might be one of the last chances before the Supreme Court rules and, as you say, you are seized and taken by force to Sweden?

Julian Assange: Well, it's one of the reasons, but remember that the Australian Government really has failed to act here. But it hasn't just failed to act for me, it has failed to act for WikiLeaks, the organization. WikiLeaks is an Australian organization, registered in Australia. It's an organization that a lot of Australians have something to do with. It's an organization that Australia—the Australian Government—should be proud of as an export industry. And the Australian Government is not just sort-of unconcerned about my fate, it is also unconcerned about the fate of other Australian journalists, such as Austin Mackell who is now trapped in Egypt with very little support from the Australian Government. And, why is that? It seem that the reason is that once politicians get to Canberra, they then essentially remove from the Australian community and they start to enter into a diplomatic community and start developing connections with persons in other countries around the world. And of course, the largest sort-of diplomatic power that Australia deals with is the United States. So, Australian politicians enter into developing a new form of patronage network that extends overseas into Washington. Many of these politicians have been good at sort-of rising up through the ranks of power, in Australia, by sucking up to the next most powerful person. And when they get to the height of Australian power they continue that same basic methodology into the United States. And that is why Australian politicians have not stood up for Australians in the past. And that's why they're not standing up for WikiLeaks and it's why they're also not standing up for Austin Mackell.

Fran Kelly: You're listening to AM Breakfast. Our guest this morning is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. He's joining us from Britain where, as I say, he's been for a long time now under essentially house arrest, waiting currently for a decision by the British Supreme Court on an extradition order to Sweden. Well, as you say, Australian politicians certainly haven't been standing up for you. Some of them are concerned though, I mean they don't agree with the action you and WikiLeaks have taken in leaking those cables.

Julian Assange: Well, some have actually stood up. And it's very interesting to see who does and who doesn't. For example, Malcolm Fraser has stood up, John Howard has stood up. So it's those politicians who are in Canberra busy trying to keep their relationships going, trying to climb the ladders of power. Those who are already out of it, like Malcolm Fraser and John Howard, take a different approach. And similarly to other people in Australia. So we've had extensive support from Australian media and Australian lawyers. The Australian community is extremely supportive. It's just not most politicians in Canberra. There are some notable exceptions; some Green politicians have really stood up for us over time.

Fran Kelly: Behind the scenes, as an Australian citizen, are you or any of your team in contact with the Australian Embassy officials? Are you getting any support from Australia and are you seeking it?

Julian Assange: Well look, frankly they're almost completely useless. They say that they have provided us... had extensive contact with us, but every sort-of SMS or email about possibly meeting us, possibly sometime in the future, they list down in response to center questions about this subject as contact with us. There has been essentially... Well I mean, I don't consider any of this support that the Foreign Ministry claims to have provided, apart from in one small area to be of significance. It's certainly not the sort of thing that they're claiming. I notice in the Austin Mackell case they're saying they're providing extensive higher-level consulate support, etc. But I know what this means. This just means a few sort of form letters that have gone from one place to another. It's all about box-ticking. It's not about doing anything, because to do something would interfere with the sort-of cocktail part circuit that these guys like to maintain themselves on going into the United States. It should be understood that, I mean the U.S.—certain sections of the U.S.... I mean, we do actually have over 40% support of the U.S. population. But certain sections of the United States are actively campaigning in Canberra. One week before Obama turned up, the U.S. Ambassador Jeff Bleich said to the Australian media in relation to my extradition, if I was to end up in Australia, Australia will have to reconsider its extradition obligations. And we get reports back from Canberra MPs that people from the U.S. Embassy have been lobbying them in relation to us. It's simply unacceptable that we keep getting back these reports about U.S. lobbying against us in Canberra. Neither is acceptable.We have high-level journalists working for respected Australian media outlets having gone in to Canberra to visit the Prime Minister and visit the Department of Foreign Affairs, coming out and telling me personally, "Whatever you do, you must not go into custody. You must not."

Fran Kelly: What do you want the Australian Government to do? Do you want them to say that if you came to Australia you would be safe from extradition? Is that what you want?

Julian Assange: The Australian Government should say to Sweden, that if I go to Sweden—should demand of Sweden—that if I go to Sweden, then I will immediately return to Australia following any sort of legal proceedings there. The big issue is whether there is some onwards extradition from Sweden. So far the Australian Government has refused to do that. In Sweden there is an extraordinary media climate that people should look into over the last week. This year alone, we have been—and myself personally—have been attacked by the Swedish Prime Minister, the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt. There has been numerous front page stories attacking this organization, saying that this organization is planning to—has been, in fact—spying on all the editors in Sweden, that it plans to surround Swedish embassies, that it plans to drive a smear campaign on all of Sweden. That is what is in Sweden right now. That is front page news in Sweden. Those editors refuse to provide their sources, refuse to enter into debate on Swedish public TV, even though Swedish public TV has offered that. So there's a sort of build-up campaign in Sweden right now for my onwards extradition. Sweden is not a country at the moment where one can feel at all comfortable about having either a fair trial, but more importantly, the political atmosphere in Sweden is developing such that politically it is possible for Sweden to re-extradite me to the United States. And that's a fact and the Australian Government should be looking into that.

Fran Kelly: So basically, you're thinking that all roads point to the U.S. Are you frightened of being sentenced to life in a U.S. jail? Is that what you're frightened of?

Julian Assange: Well, we've seen this week the UN Rapporteur on Torture denounced the treatment of Bradley Manning, one of our alleged sources, who was held in solitary confinement for nine months straight. The United States Government has refused to cooperate under the UN torture mandate with the United Nations to investigate what has happened in that case. Bradley Manning's lawyers say that Bradley Manning was treated that way in order to force him into a confession in relation to me. That's the public record, that is what his lawyer is saying, that is what has come out in the pre-trial hearings in the United States. So, this is an embarrassed superpower and those elements of it will do everything possible to try and look like they still have still control, to try and look like they still have authority. The Pentagon stood up in a 40-minute press conference and demanded of me personally on international TV for 40 minutes that we must destroy all our previous work, we must destroy all our upcoming publications, and we must never deal with U.S. Military sources or whistleblowers again. And we negated those demands. We kept to our promises. We published everything that we said we were going to publish. And there were world-wide reforms and debates as a result, which is what this organization was started for. But that has humiliated certain sections of the United States Government and they are after revenge at any cost.

Fran Kelly: So, Julian Assange, it sounds as though you expect, or anticipate, you might lose this extradition order, you might end up in Sweden, and end up in the U.S. If you are suddenly taken away, if you are suddenly, as you say, seized and taken by force to Sweden, and we don't hear from you again, or for a long time, what's your message to supporters?

Julian Assange: My message is, you know, you can lock up a person, but the idea continues. We have had strong support from the Australian public and Australian media for which I personally and the organization is very thankful. And I'm certain that support will really ramp up in a significant way. Bob Carr has still yet to show his colors. He's a strong character and a strong individual. He's a historian and a journalist. So perhaps he will come out swinging for us. On the other hand, perhaps not. It is something I think that all Australians should be angry about. That I would say, don't wait for me or someone else to be extradited. Y'know, to a degree everything's too late by then. If people are going to stand up, they need to stand up now, to protect me, to protect our organization, to protect our work. We also have another forty or something supporters who are involved in various court cases, we have an extrajudicial banking blockade, and so on. The war on WikiLeaks is an all front, it is not just on me, but I am the most visible sort-of victim of it.

Fran Kelly: Julian Assange, thank you very much for joining us on Breakfast.

Julian Assange: Thank you, Fran.

Fran Kelly: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. And any day now he will get that judgement from the British Supreme Court on whether he will be extradited to Sweden to face questions on sexual assault charges.

(Note: Despite Fran Kelly correctly stating Julian Assange had not be charged at the beginning of the interview, she incorrectly states he is facing charges at the end. Julian Assange has not been charged.)

2012-03-31 Transcript: Julian Assange on RadioNational, 29/03/12

Interview originally aired on ABC RadioNational Late Night Live, 29 March 2012 at 10:05PM.
Audio is available at the ABC website.

Norman Swan: And now an interview that we were going to do Monday, but we are now going to do tonight, which many of you were waiting keenly on, with Julian Assange. Who's nearing... What is it, Julian, 500 days in house arrest?

Julian Assange: I've lost count, Norman. I think it's 500 in 24 days.

Norman Swan: Where are you? Where are you under house arrest?

Julian Assange: I'm outside the city of London in the country. It's a bit isolating, but it's necessary for security reasons.

Norman Swan: But it's not a little shed. You're in a quite comfortable house.

Julian Assange: It's a small country holiday house, but it's comfortable enough. And I am in a fortunate position to have some good friends in this country to be cared for.

Norman Swan: Right. Getting a bit of noise on your phone there, Julian. Is there a bit of wind coming through or something like that?

Julian Assange: There is. I stepped outside, Norman, because it was breaking up again. Let me move into another room; maybe the reception will be better.

Norman Swan: Okay.

Julian Assange: Go ahead, Norman.

Norman Swan: Well, we're certainly getting an audio tour of your incarceration, Julian. So what's the situation; you're waiting on the Supreme Court handing down the appeal on the extradition.

Julian Assange: Yes. So we had a very big Supreme Court case here, which in itself is quite interesting. So the Supreme Court said the matter was of great public importance. There's concerns whether in the European Union one state can extradite a person from another state without any charges being made, without any evidence being given, and when the person issuing the extradition request is not even a judge, but is a policeman or a prosecutor. So that really goes from the mental notion of statehood. Because really a key ingredient to statehood is that you have the monopoly on the deployment of coercive force. And so if other, policemen say, in other countries in the EU, are able to take the reigns of coercive force in England or in other EU countries, then how does that redefine the state in the EU? Really it does, in fact, create an EU as a nation-state as opposed to an EU as a mechanism which permits states within the EU to cooperate. Another being part of an ideological project in the EU amounted to the Cold War to try and produce a United States of America. And that's a particular aspect in relation to extraditions within the EU came in after 9/11—in response to 9/11—saying that this mechanism was necessary for terrorist extraditions from one state to another, to do things very quickly, without evidence, without even charge.

Norman Swan: And if you win, putting aside the impact on you, if you win then it creates a crisis in terms of internal extradition processes within the European Union.

Julian Assange: It's hard to say. I mean, ideally that would be the case. And it would solidify more common law notions about—to be fair, which are included in the EU constitution—that there should not be punishment before trial, that decisions that are made that effect someone's liberty must be reviewable by the courts. And so, if I win it could be within the context of simply that Swedish policemen are not able to do this. But it will set some kind of important precedent.

Norman Swan: And is there a double-jeopardy, can they reissue the extradition order from a more appropriate source and get around the finding of a Supreme Court?

Julian Assange: Yeah, so they can.

Norman Swan: So they might not end with this.

Julian Assange: The Swedes could reform their system to be compliant with the British Law. The British Law demands that a judicial authority issue an extradition warrant. So they could bring their system into compliance with that and reissue, but that's not really the big concern. What is likely if I do win then the United States will issue its request for extradition, and they can simply do that by telephone call. And then they have 40 days to put in the actual extradition papers themselves.

Norman Swan: Why haven't they done that yet? I mean what grounds would they have for doing that? Is that via the Bradley Manning case?

Julian Assange: That's via this Bradley Manning case. There has been a Grand Jury meeting every month, several days a month, in Washington D.C. for the past 14 or so months, since September 2010. And that Grand Jury goes for a period of 18 months. Information has come out from several sources that this Grand Jury has a indictment against me already, but they're keeping it sealed until the appropriate moment comes to release it. And the U.S. Ambassador to the UK, Susman, said early last year that they were waiting for the Swedish case before considering their moves. So, that's all fair report that we hear back from our people in Canberra, that everyone's sort-of happy with the Swedish solution and as well to ship me off to Sweden and then Sweden has to deal with the matter.

Norman Swan: But in fact in the United States it's over the breach of security and WikiLeaks, rather than the case in Sweden which is alleged sexual assault.

Julian Assange: The case in Sweden has no charges, it's all very odd. There is no case to that degree. There is a demand by a Swedish prosecutor from Gothenburg that I be extradited to Sweden for questioning. And she has refused to use all the standard EU mechanisms such as the mutual systems treaty or Skype or telephone call or anything else—even though that is normally done in Sweden—to question me. So we believe that this questioning is in fact not a legitimate activity, if it was legitimate...

Norman Swan: So this is where your conspiracy theory, if you like, is that they're doing this so that America can extradite you directly from Sweden.

Julian Assange: Well, like all rare circumstances, like a jumbo jet going down, it tends to be many unusual factors coming together. And in this particular case, there's a Swedish national election just one month after the arrest. And this guy Claes Borgström was running the Swedish election and the complainants all from the same party, the Social Democratic party. So there's national factors and there's also geopolitical factors because Sweden has run very close over the past 10 years to the United States.

Norman Swan: Let's talk about the United States for a moment and why they're going after you. I mean, WikiLeaks is an organization, it has many members, it has members who are public, not a secret, who has been involved in WikiLeaks at the top. Why do you think America would be focusing on you rather than a corporate group, you know, 5 or 6 people that could be easily identified as being involved with WikiLeaks.

Julian Assange: It's the principle of general deterrent, Norman. WikiLeaks has been going for over 5 years, we've done material from over 120 countries. But in our publications about the United States in 2010, we've reached a certain level of publicity which was of global prominence. And the United States, the Pentagon, made a 40-minute press conference demanding of me personally, by name, and the White House as well, that we destroy all our previous publications that had come from the U.S. Government, we destroy all future publications that we had in our possession that we would publish, and that we cease dealing with U.S. military employees full stop. And of course we said that those demands were unacceptable and we would not be following them and we did not. In fact, we published everything that we said we were going to publish. But look at it this way: the Pentagon made an international, public demand and said that they would coerce us in that press conference if we did not fulfill that demand and they failed. So what credibility does the Pentagon have now? To stand up and say North Korea must do something, we demand it must do something, or an African state must do something, or Thailand must permit greater importation of tobacco. It simply has no credibility in terms of its authority anymore because it couldn't apply its authority to us, so it has to reestablish its authority with the group that defied its authority.

Norman Swan: Julian, how are you sleeping?

Julian Assange: Well, I'm pretty busy, Norman. I don't sleep much, but you know that the work that we have done over the past five years and this tremendous international battle that we have been through over the past two years, I am proud, I understand the significance of what we all have achieved, and I am very proud of it.

Norman Swan: Right, but you know what I'm asking. I'm asking about your psychological state. You run the potential of... you could lose this case, you could go to Sweden, you could be extradited to the United States, you could spend a long time in jail. You're sounding remarkably relaxed on the phone. Are you really relaxed?

Julian Assange: Well, you know since July 2010 we've been going through this every week or every couple months, that someone's been seized or raid or detained or I've been arrested or imprisoned or about to be extradited and so on. Now we are reaching the end of the road, if you like, because the matter has reached the Supreme Court and there's no legal alternative left there, merely political alternatives left. But you know, you adapt to everything.

Norman Swan: So is part of this frenetic activity as distraction?

Julian Assange: It is distracting. And I mean, what else can you do in such a situation? I believe in certain things and we're working towards those things and it is very satisfying for me to do that. We must all understand that we only live once anyway, and life is not so long anyway, so one should live your life fully and do something that you believe in. And what we have been doing I believe in and it has been successful.

Norman Swan: How are things going in WikiLeaks itself? You hear stories of internal disagreements, not being as coherent as it used to. How is the organization itself?

Julian Assange: Well, it's funny you mention this, Norman, because this is all nonsense. We had, during the sort-of big attack on us, like all organizations some people are stronger and some people are weaker. And we lost two people from the whole organization, two people. And that was in 2010.

Norman Swan: But one of them's pretty senior. Somebody who went way back with you.

Julian Assange: No, not at all. Not at all. This is simply spin. And you know when there's a big news story, people want to be in on the news story and so they start claiming authority and proximity that they never had. And that's something we have seen over the past year. And there has been no problems with the organization, no resignations—and there wasn't even a resignation; someone was suspended—there's been no suspensions since this dramatic moment in late 2010. And yet we see these sort of issues constantly bought up by our press competitors, and we should look at it that way...

Norman Swan: Press competitors?

Julian Assange: Yes, that WikiLeaks is involved in sort-of three fields of operation. One, yes we are holding very powerful organizations to account, who of course lash back and they try and discredit the message by attacking the messenger and they want to reassert their authority.

Norman Swan: That's government.

Julian Assange: That's government and sometimes big corporations like the Bank of America which set up permission to a two-million dollar a month campaign to attack us through HB Gary, U.S. intelligence firm. And then there are our media organization competitors. So we are a media organization, we have produced more words than the New York Times in the equivalent period. And so we are a competitor in that raw sense as a competitor for providing the public information. And then in relation to individual journalists, you know we have over 90 media organizations that work with us and hundreds of journalists, but there are many more who do not. So those who do not, they are social competitors. Those journalists particularly who have tried to market themselves as protectors of freedom of the press or being on the left to the degree that they are holding governments or entrenched authority to account. Those journalists are in social competition with us. Media organizations are in economic competition; those journalists see themselves as in social competition with us, and rightly so, because their grandiloquent claims of holding authority to account in fact are rather diminutive when compared to what we have achieved over the past two years. We work with many fine journalists from around the world, and also many fine media organizations, but there are many who are more about the marketing than they are about action. And our actions have shown their marketing for what it is.

Norman Swan: So it sounds as if, I mean apart from you last comment, that you've built a fair degree of wall around yourself thinking that the world is against you.

Julian Assange: We have friends and we have enemies. A superpower like the United States is a superpower because it has its tentacles in so many different places. This is not to say that it is engaged in all sorts of secret conspiracies—although of course it is engaged in a vast array of secret operations—but rather the areas are sort-of a gradient of interest. And people all over the world of certain types try and curry favor with people that they perceive to be more powerful than them, is not necessarily a matter of instruction but rather people who are perceived to be powerful, others attempt to do them favors in order to get prestige or placement or patronage. And, on the other hand, we have a lot of friends who understand that system. Reuters did a survey of 24 countries involving 19,000 people looking at what their relative support for WikiLeaks was over the world. If we look at the top 5 countries, the most supportive countries, whose support was up at the 80% level, we see South Africa was the most supportive country, Germany, Argentina, Russia, and Australia. Australia is unique, but these other four countries, what do they have in common? Well, these are countries that have thrown off a regime within living memory and they understand the abuses of government.

Norman Swan: Well, and some of them, like Russia, hate America.

Julian Assange: Maybe. But why are they... you know, China wasn't up there, for example, in that front. China is a more conservative authoritarian country. These other countries, they have thrown off a previous regime and they understand the importance of things like the Stasi archives, the national archives showing the bad behavior of government, and that publishing is a way to get the truth. And in South Africa you had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process which brought out the mechanisms of government. And if we go to the other end, we have the United States as the least supportive, and Britain as the second least supportive. But nonetheless, support in these countries, support in the United States runs to 40% of the population. That is despite the sort-of domestic propaganda within the United States that revealing classified information is treason. That's not true in most cases. So the population, despite a hostile media within the United States, is incredibly resilient at seeing through deliberate attempts to try and push a particular agenda.

Norman Swan: You're listening to Late Night Live with me, Norman Swan. I'm talking to Julian Assange. Julian, is Stratfor a competitor?

Julian Assange: That's quite interesting.

Norman Swan: Well that's what people are saying, that's why you took them down because they're a competitor of yours.

Julian Assange: Well, I did think about this. I did think about this, that to a degree...

Norman Swan: I should explain to people who might not know what we're talking about, Stratfor is a subscription service, private intelligence, giving you intelligence about the world and so on. And you, I think, what is it, 5 million emails or something like that through WikiLeaks were released recently and some people believe that was a competitive action.

Julian Assange: Well, we are source-driven, Norman. We spend extra analytical attention on matters that we think will have greater impact. But we are source-driven in terms of information that comes to us. But if we look at Stratfor, perhaps describes it a bit generously, this is an organization which we have discovered and published engages in bribing people around the world to collect information, which it then uses for...

Norman Swan: But another interpretation of that is that they're like a newspaper and they're just paying people for contributions the way a correspondence would.

Julian Assange: That's not true. It didn't start like that and it's not ending like that. And now information is showing that it isn't like that. In fact it does three things with its information: Number one, it collects that information and it feeds that information on to its private clients, like the U.S. military, U.S. intelligence, Coca-Cola corporation, Dow Chemical to spy on Bhopal activists and so on. So it is, in that extent, a private intelligence organization. It also takes that information and it is attempting to use it in something called Stratcap which is its own captive investment vehicle. So it is using information gleaned from these bribes to invest in particular stocks, invest in current...

Norman Swan: I hear what you're saying, Julian, that you're source-driven, but this seems to have been a deliberate attack by Anonymous, the hacking organization, to do it for you. It looks as if it was a fairly deliberate attack to take down Stratfor by Anonymous.

Julian Assange: You have to understand, Norman, that as a source-protection organization I can't speak at all about sourcing-related matters. Only to say that our system that we have developed is one that is designed to give the maximum protection to sources by keeping them even anonymous to us.

Norman Swan: Now Julian, you talked about Russia being big fans of WikiLeaks. You've already recorded a 10-part series with Russia Today, one of the Russian television stations, is that right?

Julian Assange: That's correct. We recorded the 10th episode two days ago.

Norman Swan: And this is an interview-based program, I hear.

Julian Assange: It's an interview-based program. It came out of me being isolated under house arrest, but nonetheless needing to understand the world and try and use the information from my understanding to protect our people and help run the organization and also help analyze the material we're getting.

Norman Swan: And who are your guests?

Julian Assange: So we thought, well, given that we need to get people anyway over to see me because I'm so isolated, and they're quite interesting people and perhaps we should film it and release the film.

Norman Swan: And can you tell us who you've interviewed?

Julian Assange: And other people shared in that. So some of the guests have said that they had been interviewed, for example the President of Tunisia, and Alaa, a famous Egyptian revolutionary, and the leader of the Bahrainian democratic movement, and David Horowitz, a right-wing Zionist from the United States. There's quite a range.

Norman Swan: And so how do you live with yourself, given that Russia is about 142nd on the world's list of press freedom and this is a Kremlin-run station.

Julian Assange: Well, you're talking about the license that Russia Today has bought. So, we have our own production company, we produce everything, and we sell licenses to any media that wish to buy licenses for the production. There is no editorial input from any of the licensees, including Russia Today.

Norman Swan: But they've instigated it, haven't they, they're the primary...

Julian Assange: The BBC didn't chose to buy a license, you know. No, they didn't instigate it; that is absolutely false.

Norman Swan: So you offered it to them.

Julian Assange: That's correct. We offered licenses and others such as the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian are also requesting licenses. But it's interesting, Norman, that you have this perception, this deception that somehow Russia Today is producing this, when this is just a licensee. Why do you have this deception? Because we released the press release that we were engaged in this very interesting production and then some days later Russia Today said they had proudly bought a license. Now, that you have the perception that you have because certain groups wish to spread an attack on us saying, 'Look, oh Julian Assange the great defender of press freedom, WikiLeaks the great defender of press freedom, has gotten into bed with the Kremlin, is employed by the Kremlin, is working for the Kremlin,' when that is false. This is another example of how traditional media dynamics are used to distort what the actual picture is. And if we look more broadly, because I want to pull out of this now, and look at the different media organizations. So, in terms of penetration to United States for foreign media network, the BBC has number one penetration, Russia Today has number two, and Al Jazeera has number three. So from our perspective, Russia Today has the second best penetration into the United States and therefore is a good deal to us if the BBC wouldn't buy a license, and of course they won't.

Norman Swan: We only have a couple minutes left, Julian, and I can't avoid talking about your discussion of running for the senate. I mean, is this just words or do you think you can really do it?

Julian Assange: I think we can do it. We've looked closely at the legal situation.

Norman Swan: Which state would you run in?

Julian Assange: Well, I've lived in in fact every state in Australia, but have particularly strong connections to Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. So picking between those states is sort of a strategic matter. There's interesting reasons for different states that we need to look at, say, the senate make up within those states and the fraction that is required and the relative existing sort-of preference swaps that are occurring. That's a strategic matter, but I do have... my father lives in New South Wales, my mother's in Victoria and so on.

Norman Swan: We will watch with interest, Julian, and good luck in your court case.

Julian Assange: Okay. Thank you, Norman.

Norman Swan: Thank you very much.

2012-05-01 Transcript: Gavin MacFadyen on the Importance of WikiLeaks

Gavin MacFadyen is the director of the Centre for Investigative Journalism. He spoke on a panel entitled "Dossier WikiLeaks: Italian secrets. By those on the inside" at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia, Italy, 28 April 2012. Video is available at the IFJ website.

I was a television investigative reporter in London for 25 years and dealt in 100 or more investigative mainstream programs which involved the lives and difficulties of 15 or 16 major whistleblowers, people who gave up a great deal to come to journalists for help to expose what they felt were crimes of conscience, terrible abuses of human rights, and all the rest. Most of the people who came in this period were torturers and murderers financed by governments who had had enough and wanted to speak out, and so we provided the facilities for them to do that.

But what of course was always disturbing was that we had no facility inside our own news organizations and our own news rooms to handle the human consequences, the bad things that almost inevitably happened to these whistleblowers. They'd lose their homes, they'd lose their cars, particularly they'd lose their spouses. It was a never-ending crisis for them. And we had nothing to do except to field the phone calls and offer sympathy, but we had no institutional means of doing it. And that was a frustration I think many of us felt who didn't want to abandon people who'd helped us. But who, in the great press of events, one story after another after another, and you're all the way around the world somewhere else, you couldn't deal with somebody still in Liverpool who'd helped you two years before.

In my case one particular whistleblower was a guy who'd been in the National Front, which is a fascist organization in the north of England, and he worked with me for nine months. The film was very successful. It reduced, I'm proud to say, the vote by 12% across the country after the film went out against the National Front. But this poor guy having talked to us was eventually tracked down over two years and stabbed on the street and he barely survived. And I was actually in California when that happened, and I just couldn't do anything about it other than to speak to the family. But there was no institutional protection. They were kind of abandoned. And so it was always this praying on my conscience, in a sense, that there was nothing that we could really do.

Now, what I think is extraordinary about WikiLeaks is that it was designed as a platform to provide security for these people, to make it possible for them to speak without fear, and to ensure that they could give the information to the public that they felt—and as a matter of conscience—they were obliged to do. And so when I first heard about this in 2007, there was an IT magazine in Britain, and I was reading it and there was some comment in it that said, 'There's a guy in Germany who is doing some very good work trying to build a platform for whistleblowers.' So I tried to find out who this was and nobody would tell me who it was. And eventually somebody said there was a guy called just 'J' and if I contacted this guy called 'J' somehow, he would tell me about this project. So eventually I did through a series of other hackers in London and in France and I was put in touch with him and he was, I wouldn't say he was entirely outgoing at first, because I was an American. But in the end he did tell me about it and I was really impressed that the entire focus of that project was now to provide security for people who wouldn't then be brutalized or victimized and subject to the travails that anybody who stands up against a huge organization is subject to.

The people that I had spoken to, who were whistleblowers, include--I just made a brief list of them--of the 16 that I can talk of, most were military, CIA, medical researchers, congressional and parliamentary researchers, corporate insiders. And towards that end, because of my experience with corporate insiders, in the United States, in Britain, in France, I was a technical adviser on a movie called "The Insider." I don't know if any of you have ever seen that, but it was a story about a tobacco whistleblower in the states who paid a huge personal price for what he did: bullets were placed in his mailbox, he was subjected to horrendous social and medical pressures.

I worked with another whistleblower in General Electric in an analysis of apartheid funding after the collapse of apartheid. And this guy was threatened by General Electric with extraordinary results. They called him into an office and said, "We know who you're talking to," meaning, I guess, us, "and if you continue talking to them tomorrow, your wife will die." And he said, "What do you... my wife!" And they said, "Your wife is on medical insurance provided by this company and if you continue talking to these people, to these journalists, we will remove her medical insurance." And so I was then placed in a position of trying to find within my own company enough resources to cover her insurance, which we did. But had there been WikiLeaks at that time, the whole question would never have arrived. I mean, it never would've emerged in that powerful and awful way. Parenthetically, we did get insurance for the woman and she didn't die. But the man was subjected to horrendous—he had to move across the United States in hiding against this huge corporation, General Electric, and survives to this day. Though sadly he wasn't the object of a motion picture by a famous director, so he's not exactly well-off, as we say.

But that 2007 conversation with Julian Assange changed, in a sense, my own apprehension of what we could do, and I became dedicated, in a sense, to the idea that we had to protect these people. And just towards that end, the powerful effect of what Kristinn [Hrafnsson] and Julian and others did in Iraq was demonstrated to me by the number of families in Iraq who felt a sense of closure now that they knew where their husbands and sons and stuff had been killed on the ground. Because the films that we did for Channel 4 and the work that The Guardian did, even before things got sticky with them, was really wonderful and providing that information to people on the ground and it got to many of them.

So I would say that, in a sense, I won't talk any more about the background because I'm sure many of you know that, but the consequences were really extraordinary. But, I have to say, it still is not widespread and WikiLeaks is bombarded with difficulties as it is, by enormous financial pressures that have been illegally brought against them by the credit card companies and a couple of banks, which have been devastating in their potential consequences, at least, convinced me that we should set up another whistleblowers organization which, I'll just tell you briefly, we've just set up in London. So we've set up—until WikiLeaks gets back up totally on its feet, which we hope will be very fast—we've set up a national organization of whistleblowers in England to provide pro bono legal help, psychological counseling, personal advice to many people because they don't know what to do when the pressures start, and the pressures drive many to suicide, and other difficulties. And so far we've got a number of people: we've got 8 financial whistleblowers from the Royal Bank of Scotland, from HBOS, and Citibank; we have 7 medical people; and 2 military and security people, including a British Army colonel who just left, a few months ago, Saudi Arabia, having blown the whistle on an enormously corrupt arms deal done by the British, which was 38 billion pounds. And he's in some fear of what the results will be. But the reason, of course, they were in those difficulties, is that WikiLeaks was not available to them then. And we're obviously extremely keen for WikiLeaks to get back in a position where it can offer that support again.

2012-05-31 Transcript: UK Supreme Court gives judgment in Assange extradition case

Transcript of the UK Supreme Court handing down the judgment in Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority, 09:15 on 30 May 2012. The full judgment and further statement is available at the UK Supreme Court's website.

UK Supreme Court President Lord Nicholas Phillips: The Swedish public prosecutor has requested the extradition of Mr Assange on charges of serious sexual offenses. (Note: Mr Assange has not been charged with any crime.) That request has raised a point of law of general public importance. It is not a point in respect of which the particular facts of Mr Assange's case have any relevance. This summary is about that point of law.

It used to be the case that this country would not extradite a person to another European country until a court here had considered the evidence against that person. The court would not approve extradition unless the evidence justified his being subjected to a criminal trial. All that changed in 2001 when we gave effect to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition. The following year, the provisions of that convention were superseded by an agreement reached between the members of the European Union. Terms of that agreement were set out in a European Union framework decision which this country was under a duty to implement. The framework decision directed that if a judicial authority in one state requested the extradition of a person from another state, the latter state would give effect to the request without considering the evidence. It was for the requesting state to consider whether the evidence justified extradition.

The United Kingdom gave effect to the framework decision in the Extradition Act 2003. That act provided that subject to certain conditions this country will extradite a person if we receive a request from a judicial authority in another member state. Point of law is simply what do the words 'judicial authority' mean.

Mr Assange has argued that they mean a court or judge. Sweden's request has been perused by a public prosecutor who is not a court or judge, so Mr Assange's argument that the request is invalid and he doesn't have to go back to Sweden. Point of law is simple to state, but it has not been simple to resolve. Indeed, we have only reached our decision by a majority of five to two.

There was discussion in Parliament about the words 'judicial authority' when the bill which became the Extradition Act was being debated. The bill used the words 'judicial authority' because those words were in the framework decision, and the Act was designed to give effect to the framework decision. It is clear that some members of Parliament believed the words 'judical authority' in the framework decision meant a court or a judge. Indeed, one minister specifically stated to the Parliamentary committee that this was the case. But he was mistaken.

'Judicial authority' is the English translation of the French words 'autorité judiciaire'. The framework decision is in both English and French, so it is necessary to have regard also to what the French phrase means. French phrase has a wider meaning than the English phrase. In French, the words 'judicial authority' can be used for public prosecutor. When the member states implemented the framework decision, many of them appointed public prosecutors to perform the role of the judicial authority. There was no suggestion that this was contrary to the framework decision. Having particular regard to this fact, the majority of the court are agreed that in the framework decision the words 'judicial authority' or 'autorité judiciaire' bear a meaning that includes a public prosecutor. Two members of the court, Lady Hale and Lord Mance, consider that this does not determine the meaning of judicial authority in the Extradition Act. In that Act, they mean a court or judge, as the minister had explained.

The other members of the court do not agree. Parliament's intention in passing the Extradition Act was to give effect to the framework decision. This was necessary in order to produce a uniform and coherent system of extradition in Europe. It was also necessary in order to comply with the duty of the United Kingdom under international law. So there is a presumption that the words 'judicial authority' should have the same meaning in the Extradition Act that they have in the framework decision. The understanding of some members of Parliament or the statement of the minister as to the meaning of the framework decision does not displace this presumption.

For these reasons, the majority has concluded the the Swedish public prosecutor was a judicial authority within the meaning of both the framework decision and the Extradition Act. It follows that the request for Mr Assange's extradition has been lawfully made and his appeal against extradition is accordingly dismissed.

Dinah Rose QC: My Lords, my Lady, I understand that you've notified but we did have one matter we wanted to raise. You will appreciate that we've only had a very limited opportunity to study this lengthy and learned decision and also that we've had no opportunity as of yet to consult with our client. However, there is one matter which causes us considerable concern on our initial reading of the decision. And that is that it would appear that a majority of the members of this court have decided the point either principally or solely on the basis of the interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a point with respect was not argued during the appeal and which we were given no opportunity to address.

Now obviously this court will have in mind its recent decision in the case of Lukaszewski, holding that Article 6 applies to extradition proceedings of the United Kingdom. We are therefore currently considering our position and whether or not it will be necessary with great regret to make an application to this court that this matter should be reopened so that we have an opportunity to argue this point. I say this only to flag it up, because obviously at the moment we need to study the judgments and consult with our client. And I appreciate the urgency of the situation and therefore thought I ought to make that known publicly as soon as possible.

Lord Phillips: Yes, thank you, Ms Montgomery, you must consider...

Rose QC: I am not technically Ms Montgomery, although easily mistaken for her.

Lord Phillips: Ms Rose. I beg your pardon. You must consider the judgment at proper leisure and if you wish to make an application we will afford you the opportunity to do so.

Rose QC: Yes. I don't know how long your Lordships and your Ladyship would be prepared to give us to make that application. We're obviously operating under some difficulty given the imminent bank holiday weekend.

Lord Phillips: We'll afford you two weeks.

Rose QC: My Lord, in those circumstances, as I understand it the order that was agreed was that this order should be stayed for seven days. But given the point I've just raised, can I ask your Lordships and your Ladyship to vary that order so that it is stayed for 14 days to permit us to make that application.

Lord Phillips: That seems a reasonable request and we'll accede to it.

Rose QC: I'm grateful.

2009-02: Tweets in Feb 09

---

---

2009-03: Tweets in Mar 09

---