Wikipedia Exposed Media - WEM


Rape accuser took "trophy photo", says Assange  December 27th 2010
Wikileaks Julian Assange  accusers Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen are accused of being CIA Operatives
August 21, 2010, 09:04:27 am
From: and  and

Swedish authorities issue an arrest warrant for Julian Assange the founder of whistleblowers' WikiLeaks website,without having issued any criminal charge against Julian Assange  ​

 David Batty and agencies, Saturday 21 August 2010 13.20 BST 

Police officers outside the Ecuadorean Embassy

Julian Assange's The World Tomorrow: Slavoj Zizek & David Horowitz (E2)
Slavoj Zizek and David Horowitz are the guests for the second episode of Julian Assange's interview show, "The World Tomorrow". "Intellectual superstar" Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher, psychoanalyst and cultural commentator. David Horowitz is a renowned stalwart of hardline conservative American political thought and an unrepentant Zionist. The tone of the conversation between Zizek, Horowitz and Assange alternated between combative, personal and good-humoured. The topics covered jumped backwards and forwards at a wildfire pace, to include Palestinians and Nazis, Joseph Stalin and Barack Obama, the decline of Europe and the tension between liberty and equality, amongst many others.

WikiLeaks’ Assange arrested in London, accused by U.S. of conspiring in 2010 computer hacking attempt

Here is what you need to know about Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who a British court sentenced to 50 weeks in prison May 1. (Sarah Parnass, Allie Caren/The Washington Post)
By William Booth , Ellen Nakashima ,,James McAuley and Matt Zapotosky
April 11
LONDON — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was expelled from the Ecuadoran Embassy here Thursday and arrested on a U.S. hacking charge — maneuvers that initiated a potentially years-long legal battle over his extradition and reignited debates about press freedom.
With Assange’s arrest, U.S. and British authorities ended a seven-year saga in which the anti-secrecy crusader stayed just beyond their reach while his group dumped classified and politically volatile materials onto the Internet. U.S. prosecutors confirmed for the first time that they had secretly charged Assange last year with conspiring with an Army intelligence analyst to illegally obtain secret U.S. military and diplomatic documents, which Assange’s group published online. He is accused of helping Chelsea Manning, the former soldier then known as Bradley Manning, perhaps unsuccessfully, try to crack a government password.
It could be some time, though, before he answers to that charge in an American court. Analysts say Assange’s extradition could take years, and only after he is in the United States can he begin what is expected to be a vigorous defense, arguing that he is like any newspaper publisher and that the charge against him is unjust.

It is possible, too, that U.S. prosecutors could seek to bring more charges. The indictment, unsealed in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, mentioned only the 2010 publishing of military and diplomatic documents. It alleged that Assange conspired with Manning to obtain those materials.
The indictment made no reference to WikiLeaks’ more recent publishing of secret CIA hacking tools or its release of Democrats’ emails, which authorities have said were stolen by Russia to affect the 2016 presidential election. President Trump once celebrated the organization for publishing those emails.
London’s Metropolitan Police, who took Assange into custody after Ecuador rescinded his asylum, said that the 47-year-old was “arrested on behalf of the United States.” British authorities originally sought custody of Assange for jumping bail after Sweden requested his extradition in a separate case stemming from sexual assault allegations. The U.S. indictment was unsealed hours after Assange’s arrest.
Video of the arrest showed a gray-bearded Assange being hauled by British police officers down the embassy’s steps and shoved into a police van. He appeared to be resisting. His hands were secured in front of him, clutching a copy of Gore Vidal’s “History of the National Security State.”
Outside of court in London, Jennifer Robinson, one of Assange’s attorneys, said Assange will fight extradition to the United States. She called the action against him “a dangerous precedent for all news media.” Robinson said she was seeking medical care for Assange, whose health she said has suffered during his time in the Ecuadoran Embassy.
The lawyer said Assange told her to thank his supporters and to say, “I told you so,” presumably a reference to Assange’s long-held prediction that the United States would seek his arrest and extradition if he left the embassy. Robinson told The Washington Post that Assange met Thursday morning with the Ecuadoran ambassador, who notified him that his asylum was being revoked. Then the Metropolitan Police were invited into the embassy, where they arrested him, she said.

Quick conviction
Assange was quickly found guilty of breaching his bail, an offense that carries a prison sentence of up to 12 months. He pleaded not guilty. 
Judge Michael Snow reprimanded Assange and said he demonstrated “the behavior of a narcissist.” The court was told that Assange resisted arrest at the Ecuadoran Embassy, shouting, “This is unlawful!”
Assange is expected to be sentenced for the bail charge at a later date. He is due to appear again in Westminster Magistrates’ Court via video link on May 2 regarding the extradition matter.
Trump — who declared, “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks!” at an October 2016 rally in Pennsylvania — sought to dissociate himself with the group on Thursday.
“I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It’s not my thing. And I know there was something having to do with Julian Assange,” he said. Attorney General William P. Barr will handle the matter, Trump said, adding: “I know nothing really about it. It’s not my deal in life.”
The U.S. indictment, filed in federal court in March 2018 and unsealed Thursday, accuses Assange of agreeing to help Manning break a password to the Defense Department’s computer network in 2010. That, prosecutors allege, would have allowed Manning to log in with another username. The indictment includes no evidence that the password-hacking effort succeeded.
Even before the attempt to learn a password, Manning had given WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of classified records, prosecutors allege. The material allegedly included four nearly complete databases, composed of 90,000 reports from the Afghanistan war, 400,000 reports from the Iraq War and 250,000 State Department cables.

Manning was imprisoned for seven years for violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, and was recently jailed again for refusing to testify before the grand jury. Her legal team demanded her release after Assange’s arrest, saying in a statement that Manning’s “ongoing detention can no longer be seriously alleged to constitute an attempt to coerce her testimony.”
Ecuadoran President Lenin Moreno announced April 11 that the country had made the decision to withdraw WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s asylum status. (Presidency of Ecuador via Storyful)
Ecuador, which took in Assange when he faced a Swedish rape investigation in 2012, said it was rescinding asylum because of his “discourteous and aggressive behavior,” and for violating its terms.
The British government heralded the development. “Julian Assange is no hero, and no one is above the law,” said Jeremy Hunt, Britain’s foreign secretary. “He has hidden from the truth for years.”
Hunt said it was Assange who was “holding the Ecuadoran Embassy hostage in a situation that was absolutely intolerable for them.” The foreign secretary praised Ecuadoran President Lenín Moreno for making “a courageous decision.”
Sweden dropped its sex crimes inquiry in May 2017. Assange had always denied the allegations.

Fearing extradition
More than anything, however, he fears extradition to the United States, which has been investigating him for alleged espionage, the publication of sensitive government documents and coordination with Russia.
The Russian government accused Britain of “strangling freedom” by taking custody of Assange.The Ecuadoran president specifically cited Assange’s involvement in what he described as WikiLeaks’ meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, and referred to the leaking of Vatican documents in January.

WikiLeaks leveraged the arrest as a fundraising opportunity. 
“This man is a son, a father, a brother,” the group said in a tweet, above a headshot of Assange. “He has won dozens of journalism awards. He’s been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year since 2010. Powerful actors, including CIA, are engaged in a sophisticated effort to dehumanise, delegitimize and imprison him.”
From Moscow, Edward Snowden, the fugitive American who once was a National Security Agency contractor, described Assange’s arrest as a violation of press freedom.
“Images of Ecuador’s ambassador inviting the UK’s secret police into the embassy to drag a publisher of — like it or not — award-winning journalism out of the building are going to end up in the history books,” Snowden wrote on Twitter. “Assange’s critics may cheer, but this is a dark moment for press freedom.”
April 11, 2019 | WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is seen in a police van after he was arrested by British police outside the Ecuadoran embassy in London. (Henry Nicholls/Reuters)

Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, had a less charitable take on Assange.
“Whatever his intentions when he started WikiLeaks, what he’s really become is a direct participant in Russian efforts to undermine the West and a dedicated accomplice in efforts to undermine American security,” Warner said. “It is my hope that the British courts will quickly transfer him to U.S. custody so he can finally get the justice he deserves.”
Barry Pollack, Assange’s U.S.-based attorney, said that although the indictment charges Assange with conspiracy to commit computer crimes, the factual allegations against him “boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source.”
Ahead of the U.S. election in 2016, WikiLeaks released tens of thousands of emails that had been stolen from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, in hacks that U.S. intelligence officials concluded were orchestrated by the Russian government.
When special counsel Robert S. Mueller III indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers in July, he charged that they “discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases” with WikiLeaks — referred to as “Organization 1” in the indictment — “to heighten their impact on the 2016 presidential election.”
Among the former Trump aides indicted as a result of Mueller’s investigation was Roger Stone, a longtime friend of the president who has been accused of lying, obstruction and witness tampering. Stone’s indictment charged that he sought to gather information about hacked Democratic Party emails at the direction of an unidentified senior Trump campaign official. He has pleaded not guilty.
In the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided against pursuing prosecution of Assange out of concern that WikiLeaks’ argument that it is a journalistic organization would raise thorny First Amendment issues and set an unwelcome precedent.
The Trump administration and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, however — eager to crack down on the unauthorized disclosure of government information — revisited the question of prosecuting members of WikiLeaks early in the administration. A court filing error in November revealed that Assange had been charged under seal.
Some federal prosecutors say a case can be made that WikiLeaks is not a journalistic organization. As if to lay the groundwork for such an argument, in April 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, now secretary of state, characterized WikiLeaks as a “nonstate hostile intelligence service” and a threat to U.S. national security.
Pompeo also noted then that the intelligence community’s report concluding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election also found that Russia’s primary propaganda outlet, RT, “has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.”

Assange’s expulsion from Ecuador’s embassy reflects a shift in the country’s politics since it first extended refuge to him.

Sebastián Hurtado, president of the political consulting firm Prófitas in Quito, Ecuador, said: “I think the president has never been comfortable with Assange in the embassy. And it’s not like this is an important issue for most Ecuadorans. To be honest, we really don’t care about Assange.”
Another hint that Assange was wearing out his welcome came in March 2018, when Ecuador cut off his Internet access, saying he had breached an agreement not to interfere in the affairs of other states. The embassy did not specify what Assange had done, but the move came after he tweeted criticism of Britain’s assessment that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of a Russian former double agent and his daughter in the city of Salisbury.
Ecuador imposed tighter house rules last fall. Among the demands were that Assange pay for his medical and phone bills and clean up after his cat.
McAuley reported from Paris. Nakashima reported from Washington. Anthony Faiola in Miami, Karla Adam in London, and Rachel Weiner and William Branigin in Washington contributed to this report.

Read more
The secretive world of Julian Assange in London
How Julian Assange ended up in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, and why he’s still there 7 years later
Julian Assange was Ecuador’s guest of honor. Until he wore out his welcome.
Today’s coverage from Post correspondents around the world
Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

John Pilger- Julian Assange Could Barely Speak in Court!
We speak to legendary journalist and filmmaker John Pilger on Julian Assange’s latest extradition hearing this Monday, which he attended. He discusses how Julian appeared at the trial, the bias of the judge against Julian Assange, the lack of mainstream media coverage of Julian’s persecution, his health and conditions in Belmarsh prison, CIA spying on Julian Assange and more!  

The United States vs Julian Assange | Four Corners 
ABC News In-depth
In the 2016 race to the White House, presidential candidate Donald Trump took a shine to the whistleblowing site WikiLeaks, led by its Australian founder Julian Assange. Trump revelled in the damage inflicted upon his opponent, Hillary Clinton, by a series of sensational leaks published by the site. Now, as President, Donald Trump has performed a spectacular flip, presiding over an administration determined to imprison the publisher of the leaks. In Part Two of its investigation into Julian Assange, Four Corners looks at Assange’s activities conducted during the nearly seven years he spent sheltering in the Ecuadorian Embassy. For Part One, Hero or Villain: The Prosecution of Julian Assange, click here: Read more about this story here: Watch more Four Corners investigations here: You can also like us on Facebook: Follow us on Twitter: And sign up to our newsletter:

The Economist explains
Why the pope has taken control of the Knights of Malta
The Vatican clashes with an ancient chivalric order

The Economist explains   Feb 7th 2017   by J.H.
ON FEBRUARY 2nd, Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Angelo Becciu as his special delegate to the Order of the Knights of Malta, an exclusive, centuries-old Roman Catholic fellowship. He told him to collaborate with the Order’s acting head for the “reconciliation between all its members” and to work for it “spiritual and moral renewal”. The letter in which he gave these instructions completed a virtual takeover of the Order that began on January 24th when the pope forced the resignation of the order's grand master, a 67 year-old Briton, Matthew Festing. What is going on?
Popes have occasionally sent representatives in to crack the whip over monastic orders suspected of veering from the doctrinal straight-and-narrow. But the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which defended pilgrims to the Holy Land during the Crusades, is an order of chivalry. And a singular one. Like countries, the Order has sovereignty (its knights having previously ruled Malta). Yet it no longer has territory beyond its headquarters on the fashionable Via Condotti in Rome. From there it dispatches ambassadors and issues stamps, coins and even its own licence plates. The only similar, sovereign entity with little or no territory is the Holy See. So Francis’s putsch is akin to the annexation of one state by another.

Ingrid Isgren (right) visited Ecuador's embassy in London to question Mr Assange

US Embassy Shopping List  Provided by WikiLeaks

Today, 21 December 2018, WikiLeaks publishes a searchable database of more than

16,000 procurement requests posted by United States embassies around the world.

21 December 2018
US Embassy Shopping List

Embassy Location
Philippines (681)Kenya (630)
Mexico (454)
Pakistan (447)
Guatemala (437)
Jordan (384)
Zambia (376)
India (364)
Colombia (362)
Peru (335)
Vietnam (333)
Nepal (322)
Saudi Arabia (317)
Iraq (313)
China (300)
Panama (296)
Canada (269)
Germany (269)
El Salvador (268)
France (248)
Ukraine (238)
Thailand (216)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (206)
Myanmar (197)
Turkey (195)
Côte d'Ivoire (193)
Serbia (189)
Russian Federation (183)
Sri Lanka (179)
Nigeria (169)
Indonesia (162)
Ecuador (160)
Haiti (152)
Kazakhstan (151)
Bangladesh (149)
Mauritius and Seychelles (146)
Moldova (140)
Poland (137)
Morocco (127)
Australia (124)
Taiwan (124)
Georgia (119)
Cyprus (108)
Sierra Leone (105)
South Korea (104)
Jerusalem (103)
Malaysia (101)
Greece (98)
Mali (97)
Kosovo (96)
Tanzania (95)
Djibouti (90)
Latvia (89)
Portugal (89)
Romania (88)
Gabon (83)
Oman (83)
Albania (82)
United Arab Emirates (80)
Namibia (79)
Timor-Leste (79)
Ethiopia (78)
Laos (78)
Cambodia (76)
Netherlands (76)
Qatar (76)
Spain (76)
Paraguay (74)
Uzbekistan (73)
Benin (69)
Tunisia (69)
Honduras (66)
Liberia (65)
United Kingdom (63)
Togo (62)
Jamaica (59)
Algeria (58)
Tajikistan (58)
Bolivia (54)
Ghana (54)
Malawi (54)
Hong Kong and Macau (53)
Kuwait (53)
Azerbaijan (51)
Belize (51)
Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga, and Tuvalu (51)
Mauritania (50)
Niger (50)
Israel (49)
Republic of the Congo (48)
Cameroon (46)
Trinidad and Tobago (45)
Bahrain (43)
Bulgaria (43)
Burkina Faso (43)
Guinea (43)
Zimbabwe (42)
Kyrgyzstan (41)
South Africa (41)
South Sudan (41)
Botswana (39)
Brazil (39)
Iceland (39)
Japan (38)
Swaziland (37)
Argentina (36)
Czech Republic (35)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (34)
Madagascar and Comoros (34)
Afghanistan (32)
Barbados, the Eastern Caribbean, and the OECS (32)
Dominican Republic (32)
Lebanon (32)
Lithuania (32)
Burundi (31)
Belgium (30)
Lesotho (30)
Sudan (30)
Singapore (29)
New Zealand (27)
Costa Rica (26)
Malta (26)
Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu (26)
Eritrea (25)
Chad (24)
Croatia (24)
Ireland (24)
Uruguay (24)
Venezuela (23)
Chile (22)
Macedonia (22)
Rwanda (22)
Uganda (22)
Mozambique (19)
Cuba (18)
Bermuda (17)
Brunei Darussalam (17)
Montenegro (17)
Palau (17)
Turkmenistan (17)
Belarus (16)
Central African Republic (16)
Senegal (16)
Suriname (16)
Equatorial Guinea (15)
Austria (14)
Nicaragua (13)
Federated States of Micronesia (12)
Luxembourg (12)
Angola (11)
Estonia (11)
Italy (11)
Norway (11)
The Gambia (11)
Cabo Verde (9)
Denmark (9)
Mongolia (9)
Switzerland and Liechtenstein (9)
Slovakia (8)
Finland (7)
International Organizations in Geneva (7)
Slovenia (6)
Egypt (5)
Bahamas (4)
Samoa (4)
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (3)
Marshall Islands (3)
Hungary (2)
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) (2)
Armenia (1)
Guyana (1
Maldives (1)
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (1)

The Vatican has destroyed the Order of Malta’s sovereignty. What if Italy does the same to the Vatican?
Ed Condon   The Catholic Herald 25 January, 2017
The Catholic Herald
Comment   by Ed Condon   25 January, 2017

The most remarkable thing about the Order of Malta controversy is not that the Grand Master, Fra’ Matthew Festing, has resigned. That is extraordinary enough, especially given that it was apparently on the invitation of Pope Francis. No, the most astonishing feature of the story is today’s announcement that the Pope will install an Apostolic Delegate to run the Order. In effect, this abolishes the Order as a sovereign entity. Under international law, what we are seeing is effectively the annexation of one country by another.
How did it come to this? Somehow, the small clique who rallied around the former Grand Chancellor, Albrecht Boeselager, have managed to turn a matter of the Order’s own internal governance into a full-blown diplomatic crisis between the two oldest and most prominent sovereign entities in the western world.
The clique never had much of a case. As I have written before, there is no question that, legally speaking, the commission set up on the recommendation of the Holy See’s Secretariat of State to investigate his sacking of Boeselager was and remains totally illegitimate.
It is clear that Boeselager was dismissed, following his refusal to resign, according to the approved legal process of the Order. It has been alleged that Fra’ Festing “defied” Pope Francis by dismissing Boeselager. But any opinion the Pope may have expressed before the event would have been in the much-rumoured letter on the matter from the Pope directly to Cardinal Burke, the Holy See’s envoy to the Order. This letter has not even been formally confirmed as existing, let alone leaked. Its purported contents remain the great unanswered question at the heart of this whole affair.
As far as one can tell from the various reports, the Pope actually gave no indication that he was opposed to the firing of Boeselager. In fact, the Holy Father seems to have been deeply concerned about the gravity of the allegations against Boeselager and even at the possibility of masonic infiltration of the Order’s membership and activities. The fact that the actual text of this letter has remained totally confidential speaks volumes about the discretion and respect for the Holy Father of both the Cardinal Patron and the Grand Master, even as they have been publicly accused of the opposite.
Fra’ Festing’s humility and courtesy are typical of the man. He has served the Order and the Pope well, with total devotion and respect for the obligations of the law and his position. And now, he has been forced from his position for doing his duty. Yet Boeselager – who refused to obey a direct order from his sovereign – and his allies have triumphed.
These allies have carried out a sordid campaign of leaked letters from Cardinal Parolin’s department, which served the sad and obvious end of framing a public narrative in which Fra’ Festing supposedly “defied” the explicit wishes of the Pope. In fact, even according to the confused and changeable timeline constructed by his friends, it was clear that Boeselager was dismissed well before Cardinal Parolin’s apparent (and still illegitimate) intervention.
The sad and severe consequences of this chain of events are considerable. The international legitimacy of the Order of Malta is now in ruins, its constitutional integrity and diplomatic standing now seem beyond repair.
Today’s announcement of an Apostolic Delegate to be appointed by the Pope represents, essentially, the total abrogation of the Order’s sovereignty. Yet the consequences for the Holy See itself may, in the longer term, be equally or even more severe. The disregard for the mutually sovereign relationship between the Holy See and the Order sets a precedent in international law, which will now lurk under the Secretariat of State’s dealings with other governments like an unexploded bomb.
If the Holy See can so brazenly insert itself into the internal governance of another sovereign entity whose legitimacy stems from a mutual agreement under international law, it now has no legal defence should another sovereign body, say the government of the Italian Republic, choose to view the independence of the Holy See as a similarly anachronistic formality. Cardinal Parolin should prepare to see today’s actions cited as legitimate precedent when the IOR, commonly called the Vatican Bank, finds its sovereign independence under renewed pressure from other countries or international bodies. Pope Benedict XVI said that “a society without laws is a society without rights”; the naked disregard for the law shown in recent weeks has sown a bitter harvest for the Holy See’s diplomatic corps to reap in the future.
For those less concerned with the diplomatic and legal aspects of this situation, there is one over-riding truth which has emerged from all this. It is now clear that for all the great hopes of curial reform which accompanied the election of Pope Francis, the Vatican remains a place where cliques and personal networks have more authority than the law, and where leaking and smearing remain part of the everyday business of governance.
The Pope himself is, as he has often stated, not a lawyer, nor is the law something he is known to have much interest in. Those in his curia who have prompted him to this action have deliberately served him, the office of the papacy, the international sovereignty of the Holy See, and of course the men and women of the Order of Malta, incredibly badly. I suspect it is now just a matter of when, not if, they come to regret it.

Bill Blum is a Los Angeles lawyer and a former state of California administrative law judge.

Barnaby Joyce says  Government should protect Julian Assange from extradition to the US

​Follow this story to get email or text alerts from ABC News when there is a future article following this storyline.
Key points:
Mr Joyce said Assange was not on US soil when he began releasing classified information and should be protected
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has previously said Assange would not receive any special treatment but would receive consular support while in prison
Assange previously sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, fearing extradition to the US

The Australian Government has not done enough to protect Wikileaks founder Julian Assange from extradition to the United States, according to former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce.
Mr Joyce has called for the Federal Government to step in and try to stop Assange being extradited from the United Kingdom to the US on espionage charges.
Assange is currently behind bars in London after living in the Ecuadorian Embassy for seven years.
Mr Joyce said Assange was not on US soil when he began releasing classified information and he should be protected.
"Sovereignty is not just for people that you like or people that you have a philosophical relationship to, it might be for someone you detest, it might be for someone that you find completely obnoxious," Mr Joyce said.
"Nonetheless, if they're a citizen of this nation, they should be afforded the rights of a citizen."
A judge in London in April found the WikiLeaks founder guilty of breaching his bail.
Assange faced sexual assault allegations in Sweden when he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London 2012, fearing extradition to the US.
Relations between the Australian and his Ecuadorian hosts soured in the final months of his stay at the embassy.
That ultimately ended when British police, at the invitation of the Ecuadorians, entered the embassy and dramatically arrested him. Ecuador has since revoked his citizenship.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has previously said Assange wouldn't receive any special treatment but would receive consular support while in prison.
"Whether you like a person or not, they should be afforded the proper rights and protections and the process of justice, as determined by an Australian Parliament, not another nation's parliament," Mr Joyce said.
"If they were in that other nation when it happened, sure. But if they were in our nation, they're covered by our laws."
Mr Joyce's intervention has failed to win over his Government's senior leaders.
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Assange was being afforded support from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials.
"He ultimately will face the justice for what he has been alleged to have done, but that is a legal process that will run its course," the deputy Liberal leader said.
"But we will continue as a Government to provide him with the appropriate consular services."
Topics: joyce-barnaby, law-crime-and-justice, world-politics, government-and-politics, australia, united-states, united-kingdom, england

John Shipton, Julian Assange's biological father, pictured, is fearful his son will be 'murdered' if sent to face trial in the United States on computer hacking charges

Edward Snowden supports the release of Julian Assange and freedom of the press

America's Military Empire? (Conspiracy Documentary) | Real Stories
Real Stories
Over the course of the last century, the US has silently encircled the world with a web of military bases unlike any other in history. No continent is spared. They have shaped the lives of millions, yet remain a mystery to most. Featuring Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky. From Standing Army Facebook - Instagram - @realstoriesdocs Twitter: Content licensed from Java Films. Any queries, please contact us at: Check out our new website for more incredible documentaries: HD and ad-free. Want to watch more full-length Documentaries?

Assange’s fight to stop extradition could cost taxpayer another £600k
Julian Assange’s battle against extradition to the US over leaks of classified military communications could last six years and cost the taxpayer another £600,000, sources close to him believe. Mr Assange, 48, the founder of Wikileaks, is in solitary confinement on the medical wing of Belmarsh prison and is understood to be complaining of mental and physical illnesses. He was dragged from the Ecuadorean embassy in London in April after officers from Scotland Yard were invited in by officials in Quito. His seven-year stay there is thought to have cost the British public £16 million.

Julian Assange's cat can often be seen peering out of the embassy's windows

Julian Assange the Co Founder of Wikileaks

Julian Assange news: the Australian computer programmer was arrested in London last month

and is driven to Belmarsh Prison to begin a 50-week sentence for breaching bail


As a US lawyer, I don't want to see Assange extradited to my country
The UK should step in and save the US from its worst excesses

Free Julian Assange No US Extradition
‘This is about the rape of justice’
Olivia Petter  @oliviapetter1 Tuesday 21 May 2019



Pamela Anderson has written an essay on her website in defence of WikiLeaksfounder Julian Assange, who is currently facing detention from Swedish prosecutors over a rape allegation first made against him in 2010. Anderson has been vocal about her support for Assange, who she described as “an innocent person” when she visited him in prison earlier this month, wrapped in a grey “free speech” blanket.
Now, the former Baywatch star has used her own experience of sexual assault to further her defence of Assange and insist that she “would never defend a rapist.”
“Today, I want to speak out as a woman,” Anderson begins. “A woman who has survived rape and sexual abuse. A woman who knows how cruel men can be, and how deep the wounds in a woman’s soul. To this day, I remember the excruciating pain.
“To this day, I can feel the agony. To this day, their faces keep haunting my sleep – a fate shared by countless women worldwide.”
In 2010, two women separately accused Australian-born Assange of rape and sexual assault in Sweden. He denied the allegations and insisted he had consensual sex with both accusers.
The sexual assault inquiry against Assange was dropped in 2015 when the statute of limitations passed.
On 13 May, Swedish prosecutors announced they'd be reopening the rape case, which was shelved in 2017 because Assange had taken refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden and the prosecutors were unable to formally notify him about the allegations, which was necessary in order for the case to proceed. 
Ecuador withdrew its asylum in April and Assange was promptly taken to Westminster Magistrates' Court and sentenced to almost a year in prison for skipping bail in 2012.
If Sweden's request for detention is approved, it would be the first step in a process to have the 47-year-old extradited from the UK.
In her essay, Anderson urges readers to “never forget the danger of error, and the power of false accusations” before describing Assange as “a friend whom I love dearly” whose health, she says, is “crumbling” as a result of the accusations he faces.
Anderson goes on to describe the ongoing investigation as “grotesque”, adding, “this is not about justice for rape. This is about the rape of justice”.
Later in the essay, she touches on the need for an “ethical discussion” on “the legitimacy of leaking government secrets, and on related questions of privacy, safety and national security”.

“But then let’s create a proper forum, invite everybody and talk about it,” she adds before urging people to “pause and think” before drawing their own conclusions about the Assange investigation.
The alleged victim’s lawyer, Elisabeth Massi Fritz, said her client was deeply grateful for the Sweden's decision to reopen the case.
Julian Assange: Swedish prosecutors reopen investigation into rape allegation made against Wikileaks co-founder
“Today we got great news,” Fritz told reporters, adding, “no one stands above the law [and] the legal system in Sweden doesn’t give a special treatment to anyone”.
Sarah Green, co-director of the End Violence Against Women coalition, has criticised those who portray Assange as a victim.
“He’s always benefited from his cult hero status, painting himself as a victim and being very righteous," she told The Guardian. "Yet this is about rape, it’s what he is accused of. It’s extremely serious.”

Pamela Anderson says #MeToo movement is 'too much' and third wave feminism is a 'bore'
‘My mother taught me, don’t go to a hotel with a stranger,’ says former Playboy model
Pamela Anderson has hit out at the #MeToo movement, saying it is “too much” and third wave feminism is a “bore”.
The former Playboy model and Baywatch star said feminism can go “too far” and that her mother had taught her not to go to hotels with strangers.
“I think this feminism can go too far,” the 51-year-old told 60 Minutes. “I’m a feminist, but I think that this third wave of feminism is a bore. I think it paralyses men.”
Anderson, who has criticised the movement before, added: “I think that this #MeToo movement is a bit too much for me. I’m sorry, I’ll probably get killed for saying that … but my mother taught me, don’t go to a hotel with a stranger.”
The #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault exploded last autumn after a series of sexual misconduct allegations were made against powerful men in Hollywood and a slew of other industries.
Anderson also addressed her relationship with Julian Assange – the WikiLeaks founder who is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London under threat of extradition to America to face potential espionage charges.
Anderson, who was interviewed from her home in the south of France, called on Australian prime minister Scott Morrison to use his power to bring Assange, who is an Australian citizen, back to his homeland.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange leaves Southwark Crown Court in London on May 1, 2019.Daniel Leal-Olivas / AFP - Getty Images

Juilan Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy.Photo credit: David G Silvers

The debate over what Julian Assange’s arrest means for freedom of the press, explained
“This case raises a number of really thorny questions about what it means to be a journalist.”
By Emily Stewart  Apr 12, 2019,

Is the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange justice against a man who broke the law, or is it a warning shot that journalism is under threat in the United States?
It’s a difficult question to answer, in part because it brings up a host of other related questions: Do you consider WikiLeaks a journalistic organization or not? Did Assange actively participate in criminal activity to obtain classified intel, as the US government alleges, or did he just disseminate information passed on to him and is therefore protected by the First Amendment? Does it matter that Assange and his organization seem to have developed at the very least an affinity to Russia? And is the single charge he faces in the United States the total of the government’s push for justice — or is it just the opening salvo in what will become a larger war to punish Assange (and anyone else who publishes classified information)?
These questions all came to a head on Thursday when, after months of speculation, Assange was arrested in London by British police after being expelled from the Ecuadorian Embassy there. He now faces likely extradition to the US. After his arrest, the Justice Department unsealed an indictment alleging that Assange conspired with former US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password on a Defense Department computer network in order to download classified records and transmit them to WikiLeaks in 2010.
That, however, isn’t all the US government is upset about. Starting in 2010, WikiLeaks published a video of an airstrike in Iraq that killed civilians, military documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and State Department cablesin which diplomats gave candid assessments of foreign governments, all provided by Manning. The unprecedented leaks gained enormous attention and made Assange a sort of celebrity — and a target, as top US officials like Attorney General Eric Holder publicly mused about how they could charge him. Perhaps freshest in mind, however, is the “hacktivist” organization’s decision to publish Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta’s emails in the months before the 2016 election.
There has long been a debate about whether what WikiLeaks does counts as journalism. Some view Assange and WikiLeaks as a bastion of transparency and an ultimate example of forcing government accountability. Others see the work as dangerous and treacherous.
With Assange’s arrest and the unsealing of the Justice Department’s indictment, the dust around WikiLeaks has been kicked up again. Some groups dedicated to free speech and press have decried the incident as a foreshadowing of dark times to come for American journalism, while many observers have celebrated it as justice served.
“This case raises a number of really thorny questions about what it means to be a journalist, and who is entitled to the constitutional protections that do exist to ensure that the public gets the information it needs,” David Schulz, senior counsel at Ballard Spahr LLP and director of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School, told me.

A lot of people are celebrating Assange’s arrest — but not everyone

At WikiLeaks, Assange has made a lot of enemies, and by many accounts, he’s a jerk. He’s also been hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid an investigation into a sexual assault allegation against him in Sweden.
Many in the national security space hold animosity toward him for compromising sensitive confidential information, including about US military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan and communications from State Department officials. Many Democrats also blame him, at least partially, for Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 election after WikiLeaks published Podesta’s emails and hacked information from the Democratic National Committee.

“Julian Assange got what he deserved,” author Michael Weiss wrote in the Atlantic.

“He’s our property, and we can get the facts and truth from him,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told CNN.

Groups dedicated to free speech and press have had a different read.

Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s speech, privacy, and technology project, said in a statement that any prosecution of Assange for WikiLeaks’ publishing operation would be “unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations.”
“The potential implications for press freedom of this allegation of conspiracy between publisher and source are deeply troubling,” said Robert Mahoney, deputy director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, in a statement. He added that the US government could “set out broad legal arguments about journalists soliciting information or interacting with sources that could have chilling consequences for investigative reporting and the publication of information of public interest.”
Barry Pollack, an attorney for Assange, echoed the sentiment in an email to Yahoo News. “Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges,” he said.
This is a little like getting Al Capone on tax evasion
When reports surfaced last year that the US government had indicted Assange, there was a lot of speculation about what, specifically, he was being charged with. As Vox’s Andrew Prokop laid out at the time, the US government had already charged people they’d accused of leaking classified information, including Manning, but going after the publisher of that information was highly unusual. It’s one of the reasons President Barack Obama’s Justice Department hadn’t charged Assange years ago.

But after Assange’s arrest on Thursday, the Department of Justice unsealed the indictment, which is dated to March 2018. The charge: “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,” related to Assange’s alleged attempt in 2010 to help Manning figure out a password she needed to access more classified documents and information. Per the indictment, it appears the attempt was unsuccessful.
Compared to what some observers thought the indictment might be — including much more serious charges under the Espionage Act — the charge against Assange is, frankly, a pretty small one. If he’s convicted, he could face up to five years in prison — less time than he spent hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK.
It’s a bit like gangster Al Capone being arrested on tax evasion charges: It’s probably not what the US government wanted to get him on, but it’s the way they could do it.

“This is not the thing they care about,” Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told me. “It’s the thing that they can win a court case over.”
For those who view Assange as a criminal as contemptible as Capone, that’s a win — take what you can get. But for civil liberties defenders, it’s a reprehensible overreach.
That the US government would go to such extreme lengths to go after Assange has caused some alarm, especially in light of how small the charge is against him, at least for now. “It would be pretty unusual for the government to go to this amount of effort to extradite someone if that was the only issue,” Sanchez said. “If their only contribution to the crime has been that they ran some software against a password hash and then failed to actually help, then that probably wouldn’t result in someone’s extradition.”
Journalists aren’t given a free pass to commit crimes in the pursuit of a story — but they also haven’t been punished for publishing info that came from one

That’s not to say that what the indictment alleges Assange did, if convicted, isn’t a crime.

And reporters don’t get to just commit any crime they want in the name of journalism. If I punch someone to get them to talk to me for a story or break into their house to steal documents, I can still be charged with assault or robbery.
“Journalists are not scot-free to do whatever they think they need to do in order to pursue an act of journalism,” said Columbia University professor Todd Gitlin.
Whether Assange committed a crime in his work with Manning is something that will ultimately be decided if he is indeed extradited and brought to trial. That’s when courts will determine whether he knowingly violated the law to gain access to information. What it could all hinge on: Did he just advise Manning on how to avoid detection, or was he conspiring with her to get information in an illegal way?
There are some prior cases that illustrate how this could play out, and where the line is. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled on a case called Bartnicki v. Vopper. In that case, a person intercepted and recorded a phone call between a union negotiator and union president and sent it to a radio station, which played a tape of the conversation. The court ruled that the First Amendment protected the broadcaster because it hadn’t participated in the illegal interception.
Other cases, however, have gone the other way. A Texas television station was implicated when a man made recordings of his neighbor’s cordless phone conversations discussing plans to interfere in the local school district’s insurance contract. (The station ultimately settled the related lawsuit.) A journalist was arrested for allegations that he aided and abetted a TWA pilot who stole evidence from the TWA Flight 800 crash in the 1990s.
“There is established in the law a pretty bright line,” Schulz said. “You cross it when you become a participant in illegal activity.”

This is a lot bigger than a password

The debate about Assange and WikiLeaks stretches far beyond helping Manning crack a password. It has reopened the ongoing discussion about whether what WikiLeaks does counts as journalism. It has also raised questions about the government’s intentions and whether this opens the door to prosecuting more journalists or not.
On the former point, people have different opinions of whether what WikiLeaks does — dumping troves of data indiscriminately — is really journalism.
“Is a data dump journalism? That’s an interesting question,” Gitlin said. “In the case of war crimes footage, I feel comfortable saying that by working with Manning on that, Assange was performing an act of journalism. But when you release terabytes of data indiscriminately, I don’t know what to call that, but it’s not self-evidently journalism.”
Indiscriminate data dumps such as those WikiLeaks engages in can have dangerous consequences. For example, human rights advocates have complained that WikiLeaks’ activities have endangered activists in China, and the platform has released information on government sources that the US has gone to great lengths to protect.
Making the matter even more complicated is the evolution of WikiLeaks itself. Back in 2010, it gave the New York Times, Der Spiegel, and the Guardian troves of information. In 2016, it was clearly rooting for Trump and trying to undermine Clinton. And as Foreign Policy points out, Assange was at the same time declining to publish damaging information on the Russian government. Members of Trump’s administration have even gone so far as to denounce WikiLeaks as a “hostile intelligence service.” (To be sure, a lot of journalism is far from unbiased.)
More specifically to Assange and the charge against him right now, there are concerns that there could be more charges brought against him in the future. That’s one of the concerns Wizner, from the ACLU, raised in his statement. “We have no assurance that these are the only charges the government plans to bring against Mr. Assange,” he said.
The New York Times noted that if the Justice Department does intend to charge Assange with additional offenses, it would likely need to do it before the UK decides whether to send him to the US. The extradition process could take months or even years, so there’s a non-zero chance more charges could be added — and press advocates worry that any broader charges related to WikiLeaks’ work could have a chilling effect on more traditional media outlets that are considering publishing leaked information.
“Never in the history of this country has a publisher been prosecuted for presenting truthful information to the public,” Wizner told CNN in 2017. “Any prosecution of WikiLeaks for publishing government secrets would set a dangerous precedent that the Trump administration would surely use to target other news organizations.”
Adding another layer of anxiety is the Trump administration and its contentious relationship with the press. The president has openly discussed an interest in loosening up libel laws and frequently derides the media.
The controversy over WikiLeaks’ place in the journalistic sphere and what Assange’s arrest means for reporting isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. It may very well be that Assange did commit a crime — but his arrest might not be something we should cheer, at least not without some reflection.
The news moves fast. Catch up at the end of the day: Subscribe to Today, Explained, Vox’s daily news podcast, or sign up for our evening email newsletter, Vox Sentences.

 Julian Assange’s father fears the US government will ‘murder’ his son if he is extradited to America 


John Shipton is concerned about his son's safety if he is extradited to the US
Julian Assange is currently on remand awaiting an extradition hearing next year

US authorities want to question Assange on suspicion of computer hacking 

Julian Assange's biological father has claimed the Australian activist will be murdered if he is extradited to the United States. 
Assange father John Shipton claimed his son is in danger after the UK government cleared the way for his extradition to the US where he faces computer hacking charges. 
Assange, who spent almost seven years in the Ecuadorean embassy, was due to be released from prison last Friday, but was remanded in continuing custody until his extradition hearing in February. 
The then Home Secretary Sajid Javid signed an order in June allowing the extradition.
His extradition hearing is not due to be heard until February 2020, however he is being held in custody because of his 'history of absconding'. 

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser told him last Friday: 'You have been produced today because your sentence of imprisonment is about to come to an end.
'When that happens your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.

'Therefore I have given your lawyer an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so. Perhaps not surprisingly in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings.
'In my view I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again.'
Assange's father John Shipton criticised the decision to hold his son in custody. 
In an interview with the Strategic Culture Foundation, Mr Shipton said: 'Julian has lost 15 kilos in weight, is held in Belmarsh Maximum Security prison hospital 22 hours per day in solitary confinement.' 
Mr Shipton claimed Assange was being denied proper visits and access to his legal team.   

He also said: 'They will murder Julian one way or the other.' 

WikiLeaks founder Assange denied delay to extradition hearing by London judge -The full extradition hearing of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will go ahead in February 2020 after London judge Vanessa Baraitser declined a request by his lawyers to delay proceedings by three months. Assange appeared in a London court on Monday (October 21) for a hearing on whether he should be extradited to the United States to face spying charges. He was dressed in a navy suit and light blue jumper, and raised his fist to supporters in the public gallery. He was cleanly shaven in contrast to the long beard he had grown while holed up in Ecuador's embassy. Wkileaks Editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said he was "disappointed " with the judge's decision while speaking to journalists after the court hearing. Assange, 48, faces 18 counts in the U.S. including conspiring to hack government computers and violating an espionage law. He could spend decades in prison if convicted.

Hillary Clinton Email Archive

On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. More PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016, and a set of additional 995 emails was imported up to February 2, 2018.

Human rights barrister Dan Sternberg, a specialist in extradition at Temple Garden Chambers, told RightsInfo that Mr Assange might look to the Human Rights Convention (HRC) to fight his extradition requests

Image Credit: Republic of Korea/Flickr

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he had been staying since 2012.

Assange was arrested in April after the Ecuadorean embassy told the Metropolitan Police that they were no longer offering asylum to the Australian Wikileaks founder

It’s time to act: They are killing Julian Assange slowly
The following remarks were delivered by investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi at Global Threats to Press Freedom, Courage’s event for Julian Assange in Bergen, Norway, culminating a three-week exhibition of #WeAreMillions portraits in support of the WikiLeaks publisher. Video of Stefania’s speech is here.

Good evening. First of all I would like to thank you for your kind invitation to come to speak here.

Let me introduce myself: I am an Italian investigative journalist working for the major Italian daily la Repubblica. You might wonder why an Italian journalist has come to Norway to discuss the Julian Assange case. I have spent the last 10 years working, among other things, on all of WikiLeaks’ secret documents for my newspaper, initially the Italian newsmagazine l’Espresso, and then the Italian daily la Repubblica. When I started working on their files it was 2009: few professionals had ever heard of Julian Assange. WikiLeaks had been established just 3 years before and it hadn’t yet published its bombshells, like the video “Collateral Murder” or the US diplomacy cables. Starting in 2009, I worked on all of their secret documents, acquiring solid experience in verifying sensitive documents, looking for narratives and angles to make such files relevant for a large readership.
Among the international journalists who have worked with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, I am the only one who has worked on all of their secret files, coming to know their databases in depth and the rationale behind WikiLeaks’ publication strategy. I am also the only one who has tried to access the full set of documents on the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks case using the Freedom of Information Act and suing the Swedish and UK government authorities who keep denying me access to the full documentation. As incredible as it may seem, hundreds of journalists have reported on the Assange and WikiLeaks case, but none of them has ever tried to access the documents to acquire factual information to reconstruct the case factually.
There are different levels of power in our societies. The visible ones are obvious: officials who have a political role, for example, and are often involved in crimes like corruption. Usually, investigating the “visible levels” via journalistic activities is fully tolerated in our liberal democracies. Journalists may be hit by libel cases, and exposing political corruption may prove a liability for their careers, but it is widely accepted in our democracies. The problem arises when journalists touch the highest level, where states and intelligence services operate. This level of power is protected from scrutiny and true accountability by thick layers of secrecy: it doesn’t like the sunlight, it has a true horror of continuous exposure.
WikiLeaks focuses on this level of power: it has published tens of thousands of secret documents about entities like the Pentagon, the CIA and the NSA and I see this work as extremely valuable because these entities are hugely powerful and yet they are accountable to no one. Unauthorised disclosures on the highest levels of power are the lifeblood of free press in a democratic society.

I am not here to convince you on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, I am here to tell you what I have seen and heard in first person over the last ten years of this work. Newspapers pay journalists to be there where things happen: what I have seen in this case has left me deeply worried, and I am grateful to you all for inviting me to discuss this matter.

I saw Julian Assange immediately lose his freedom after publishing the secret US government files: to this day, Assange has not known freedom again. He has spent 9 years arbitrarily detained, as the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention established – and I am happy that we have professor Mads Andenas here who knows a lot about this. Assange is currently in a high-security jail in London, Belmarsh: he has been charged with Espionage Act violations. If the US authorities succeed in extraditing him to the US, he will spend his entire life in prison simply for publishing documents which have exposed the true face of the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, abuses in Guantanamo, and other crucial information in the public interest. How can we accept this? This is completely incompatible with freedom of the press in our democratic societies.

Before I go into detail on the Espionage Act case, I want to tell you about other things I have witnessed in first person: I have seen a small media organisation, WikiLeaks, taking huge legal and extralegal risks to publish extremely valuable information in the public interest, risks that not even big corporate media are willing to shoulder. I just want to mention some of the former and current WikiLeaks journalists whose identities are already public: people like the current editor of WikiLeaks, Kristinn Hrafnsson, the WikiLeaks journalist, Joseph Farrell, and Sarah Harrison, the journalist who flew to Hong Kong to help Edward Snowden to seek asylum.

I have greatly appreciated the intellectual courage of Norsk Pen in awarding Edward Snowden the Ossietzky Prize. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that without Sarah Harrison and WikiLeaks, today Snowden would be sitting in a maximum security prison in the US. I don’t know if you remember what really happened back in 2013, after the first Snowden revelations: he was essentially abandoned, and although some of the powerful newspapers that had obtained the Snowden files, like the Guardian or the Washington Post, could have had enormous negotiation power in brokering an agreement with the U.S. government to protect Snowden if they had wanted to do so, none of them did. Had it not been for Sarah Harrison and WikiLeaks, Snowden would be in jail for life. You may not be enthusiastic about the fact that Snowden got protection from Russia, but no one was willing to come out with a better and suitable solution. Edward Snowden had asked dozens of European countries for asylum: none of them was willing to provide him with protection.
It’s obvious to me that Julian Assange, Sarah Harrison and the WikiLeaks team will run up against huge legal troubles for having assisted Snowden, but what they did was a valuable service: they protected one of the most important journalistic sources of all time. And again I find it extremely concerning that one of the most important journalistic sources of all time was put in the condition of having to leave his country to reveal the abuses of his own government: this is not what it is supposed to happen in our Western democracies. Journalistic sources who expose abuse of power at the highest levels shouldn’t be forced to escape to Russia, as Snowden was.  They shouldn’t be put in jail in very harsh conditions as Chelsea Manning was. Let’s not forget that Chelsea is still in jail for refusing to testify against Julian Assange.
All of these situations have been very troubling to me: they expose how limited freedom of the press is in our societies, and how high the price for sources like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden and for journalists like Assange and his team at WikiLeaks. It shouldn’t be so high, and public opinion should be aware that while our governments and intelligence agencies have all the interest in making that price very high in order to set a deterrent, the media and public opinion should react and mobilise to fight against this strategy.
Unfortunately, this is not what has happened with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks: over the last decade, I have seen a complete lack of solidarity from the mainstream media, and their hate campaign against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks has been very damaging. I have no problem admitting that Assange and WikiLeaks are not perfect, and I am aware of many of their mistakes, but at the same time I have witnessed a true demonization campaign against him and his staff, and this demonization campaign has greatly contributed to undermining their work and reputation. As you know, reputation is everything when it comes to a media organisation, and reputation is everything if you have powerful enemies who want to crush you, like the CIA in the case of Assange and WikiLeaks.
Take the Assange situation: he has spent 9 years arbitrarily detained in London without a single Western media outlet daring to say: “I don’t think we should keep an individual confined to a tiny building with not even one hour outdoors per day.” No Western media have ever written an editorial to express such concern. Isn’t that alarming? I think it is pretty shocking.
Had the media loudly condemned the arbitrary detention of Julian Assange for the last 9 years, as you would expect from the Western media, Assange would probably be free: he wouldn’t be sitting in the high-security prison at Belmarsh. Had they loudly condemned how Assange’s health has seriously declined in the last 9 years, something I have witnessed in first person, Assange wouldn’t be in such bad shape. Last week in a radio interview his father, John Shipton, discussed his concerns about his son’s health rapidly declining in the high-security prison in Belmarsh.
It has been very depressing to see how many mainstream media outlets have simply repeated the US authorities’ attacks against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Remember what happened when they published the Afghan War Logs: the Pentagon immediately attacked them, saying that WikiLeaks “might have blood on its hands”. The Pentagon had and still has an obvious interest in undermining Julian Assange and WikiLeaks’ reputation, and yet many mainstream outlets have simply circulated the Pentagon’s attack without any criticism. As you probably know, Chelsea Manning’s trial allowed us to establish once and for all that, as a matter of fact, no one died or was injured as a result of the WikiLeaks publications. And yet, nine years on, that Pentagon’s argument continues to circulate in the media: we are still discussing the victims that never were, while ignoring hundreds of thousands of innocent people who died in the Afghan and Iraq wars.
The same applies to Russiagate: once again, ninety-nine percent of reporters are repeating whatever the intelligence agencies say, and once again it is very obvious that those intelligence agencies have a huge interest in crushing WikiLeaks, because they perceive it as an existential threat to themselves.
I did not appreciate WikiLeaks exchanging direct Twitter messages with Donald Trump Jr. or with Roger Stone, and I did not appreciate WikiLeaks retweeting certain reactionary individuals connected with the Trump campaign.  At the same time, contacting all sorts of individuals is what we journalists do all the time. And most of all, I do believe that publishing the DNC and Podesta emails was the right thing to do, and in fact the emails were widely covered by prominent news outlets like the New York Times. The documents revealed the sabotage of Bernie Sanders by party officials – a revelation which led the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to resign – and they revealed Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs behind closed doors. Even the New York Times editorial board had called for Clinton to release those “richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain”.
In these last 13 years of its existence, the impact of WikiLeaks has been huge. Thanks to WikiLeaks, it has been possible to reveal the true face of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq; the identities of Guantanamo detainees; the scandals and embarrassing diplomatic deals contained in the U.S. diplomacy cables which, among other things, helped unleash the Arab Spring, according to Amnesty International.
It has been possible to reveal the inner workings of the U.S. private intelligence firm Stratfor, and to expose the highly unethical business practices of the Italian company, Hacking Team. WikiLeaks has also revealed the NSA intercepts of international leaders, including three French presidents, the European Union’s operations to stop migrants and refugees, CIA cyber weapons and some of the surveillance technologies used by Russian contractors.
All of this information has been made available by Wikileaks to everyone and completely free of charge, so that any journalist, activist, scholar or citizen can access it directly, without any need for a special channel. And in fact when the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed, the Washington Post immediately searched the WikiLeaks databases for emails relating to the Saudi authorities involved in that horrific killing.
The model of journalism pioneered by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks has been copied by many: their idea for a submission platform to allow whistleblowers and journalistic sources to submit very sensitive documents anonymously has been adopted by virtually all the most important international newsrooms. Their databases have been used by academics, journalists, scholars, lawyers, human rights and political activists. Many years after their publication, these documents continue to inform the public, as the Jamal Khashoggi case demonstrates.
And yet Julian Assange has never again known freedom: he and his WikiLeaks journalists are enormously at risk, they all risk ending up in jail. Assange is already in jail, his health is very poor, he has been charged with Espionage Act violations. As the American Civil Liberties Union stressed, the Assange case marks the first time in American history that criminal charges are being brought “against a publisher for the publication of truthful information” under the Espionage Act of 1917. If the US authorities succeed in extraditing him and his staff, this will set a devastating precedent for freedom of the press.
The prosecution of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks will be used as a picklock to undermine the role of the press in exposing the highest level of power (the CIA, the Pentagon, and the National Security State more in general), just as terrorism has been used since 9/11 to pass laws which have immensely eroded fundamental rights: terrorism has been used to make them acceptable to public opinion.
The prosecution of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks will also be used by authoritarian societies like China and Russia, because as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, “If the US can prosecute a foreign publisher for violating our secrecy laws, there’s nothing preventing China, or Russia, from doing the same.”
If the US authorities succeed in crushing Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks staff, the consequences for freedom of the press will be devastating: the Assange case will have a domino effect. I want to see Julian Assange and his team free and safe because I want to live in a society where journalists and their sources can expose the highest levels of power without having to flee to Russia or ending their lives in prison. That is what freedom of the press is.

I hope this debate tonight will be the beginning of a worldwide debate on the Assange and WikiLeaks case.
There is still room for action, and if you really care about freedom of the press, if you really care about a press able to expose war crimes and human rights violations committed by powerful entities which are accountable to no one, it is time to act. Everyone can do something, just by speaking out, informing himself, mobilising, protesting.
he Assange and WikiLeaks case goes far beyond Assange and WikiLeaks.

JULIAN ASSANGE, the fugitive computer programmer, is in a state of rapidly “deteriorating health” say WikiLeaks

.By SAM STEVENSON PUBLISHED: 00:23, Thu, May 30, 2019
JULIAN ASSANGE, the fugitive computer programmer, is in a state of rapidly “deteriorating health” say WikiLeaks.By SAM STEVENSON
PUBLISHED: 00:23, Thu, May 30, 2019 

The non-profit organisation released a statement confirming their concern. The announcement, posted to the group's official Twitter page, read: “WikiLeaks has grave concerns about the state of health of our publisher, Julian Assange, who has been moved to the health ward of Belmarsh prison.” Assange was recently arrested and detained in the UK after seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.  
The subversive character has been moved to the health ward of Belmarsh prison in London after he was "totally isolated and gagged" in the Ecuadorian embassy in London as the US "finalised its extradition plans", WikiLeaks claim. 

They said in a statement: “Mr Assange’s health had already significantly deteriorated after seven years inside the Ecuadorian embassy, under conditions that were incompatible with basic human rights.
“The United Nations twice found him to have been arbitrarily detained and called on the United Kingdom to honour its commitments under international law and free him.”Assange was on the run from authorities after he was accused of rape in Sweden - charges he vehemently denies. 

Kristina Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, said: “Julian’s case is one of major historic significance.
“It will be remembered as the worst attack on press freedom in our time.
“The people need to voice their condemnations; it is their politicians, their courts, their police and their prisons that are being abused in order to leave this black stain on history.”

The controversial Australian journalist in 2006 helped found WikiLeaks - an organisation whose aims involve uncovering war crimes, human rights abuses, and corruption.
Earlier this month a total of 17 new charges were filed by the US Justice Department against Assange, who is facing extradition from the UK.
The latest charges accuse him of receiving and unlawfully publishing the names of classified sources.
He was previously charged last month with one count of conspiring with ex-intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to gain access to the Pentagon network.
Assange is serving a jail sentence in the UK for jumping bail.

In 2010, an international arrest warrant was issued for Assange amid the sexual assault claims in Sweden.
Swedish authorities are also seeking his extradition after reopening an investigation into the rape allegation against him made in 2010, the BBC reports.
The decision as to which of the two countries take precedence in their requests will be made by UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid.
Mr Javid is under "enormous pressure to protect the rights of the free press in the UK and elsewhere," Wikileaks said.
Denying the allegations, Assange said he would be extradited from Sweden to the US because of his role in the publication of secret documents.

The leaks included Afghanistan and Iraq war logs, a video entitled ‘Collateral Murder’ and CableGate.
Actor and model Pamela Anderson is a high-profile defender of Assange. 
According to the Hollywood Reporter, during the Cannes Film Festival, Assange's longtime friend said of the WikiLeaks founder: "He's a great guy and he's being crucified."
The case in Sweden led Ms Anderson to further defend Assange via a personal blog post published this week.
As a rape and sexual assault survivor, the 51-year-old Playboy icon writes that she would never defend a rapist.
The women who accused him, she writes, only did so after being pressured by authorities.

Julian Assange reveals ‘moderate to severe depression’ - signs of mental health condition
WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange has appeared in court to be sentenced for breaching his bail, and for evading arrest by spending years in the Ecuadorian Embassy. He has today revealed he has “moderate to severe depression”, but what is the mental health condition, and what signs and symptoms should you be looking out for?By MATT ATHERTON
PUBLISHED: 12:23, Wed, May 1, 2019 

The Australian was found guilty to breaching his bail last month after being arrested at the Ecuadorian Embassy.The WikiLeaks founder had spent almost seven years avoiding arrest by staying in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Today in court, it was claimed that Assange has “moderate to severe depression” as a defence, according to Sky News. But what is the condition?

Depression is an overwhelming low mood that affects your everyday life, according to mental health charity Mind.
While it’s perfectly okay to have periods of low mood or to feel sad, you could be clinically depressed if it’s interfering with your life, and doesn’t go away after a few weeks.
The most common depression symptoms include feeling upset, tearful, restless, numb, or isolated.
It could even leave you feeling like there’s no pleasure in life, and you have no self-confidence or self-esteem.

Some depression patients may avoid activities that they usually enjoy, struggle to think clearly, have difficulty sleeping, or even sleep too much.But there are a large number of different signs and symptoms, and every patient will have a different experience, it added.
“In its mildest form, depression can mean just being in low spirits,” said Mind. “It doesn’t stop you leading your normal life but makes everything harder to do and seem less worthwhile.
“At its most severe, depression can be life-threatening because it can make you feel suicidal.
“If you are given a diagnosis of depression, you might be told that you have mild, moderate or severe depression.
“This describes what sort of impact your symptoms are having on you currently, and what sort of treatment you're likely to be offered.
“You might move between different mild, moderate and severe depression during one episode of depression or across different episodes.
 There’s no single cause for depression, and it can happen for a number of reasons, said the NHS.

It could be caused by a stressful life event, including bereavement, illness, money worries or even redundancy.
Speak to a doctor if you think you may be depressed, as there are a number of different treatments available.
Treatment usually includes both talking therapies and medication, it said. Taking therapies include counselling and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).
Meanwhile, antidepressants could be prescribed by your doctor, and is usually used for depression that’s moderate to severe.
For confidential support call Samaritans in the UK on 116 123 or visit

Pamela Anderson speaks out after visiting Julian Assange in prison

Australian pollies from across the political spectrum have united in an attempt to bring home Julian Assange as the whistleblower prepares to face a London court.

Pope's Orders - WikiLeaks Releases

Pope’s Private Letter Reveals Early Involvement in Power Struggle - 30 January, 2019
Pope’s Private Letter Reveals Early Involvement in Power Struggle
30 January, 2019

Documents released by WikiLeaks today shed light on a power struggle within the highest offices of the Catholic Church. Amongst the documents is a private letter written by Pope Francis. The existence of this letter, addressed to the papal envoy Cardinal Raymond Burke, has been the source of much speculation in the media [1]. It is now published for the first time in full and with the Pope’s signature.
This letter concerns the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, also known as the Order of Malta or the Knights of Malta, originally founded in Jerusalem during the Crusades in 1099. As the name indicates, it has been widely recognised as a sovereign entity in itself despite theoretically being subject to papal authority as a Catholic institution.
This ambiguous status cuts to the heart of the dispute as it reached a fever pitch after Pope Francis forced the abdication of Matthew Festing as Prince and Grand Master of the Order in January 2017. A month earlier Festing had dismissed the Order’s Grand Chancellor Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager.
The reason for the dismissal is said to be that Boeselager, who served as health minister for the Order, was held personally responsible for having approved funds for an aid mission in Africa that distributed condoms, amongst other things. This directly contravenes Church teachings on contraception and Festing was adamant that Boeselager be held responsible.
Boeselager, however, appealed to Pope Francis, who in turn deeply undermined the Order’s independence and sovereignty by appointing a papal commission to investigate the matter and report back to the Holy See. Boeselager was subsequently reinstated at the same time as Festing was ousted. The papal letter, published by WikiLeaks today, shows the Pope was aware of and involved in the dispute since at least November 2016 when he met with Cardinal Burke.
The Pope’s dramatic moves in January 2017 effectively abolished the sovereignty of the Order and have been described by its harshest critics as the annexation of one country (the Order) by another (the Holy See) [2]. Members of the Order even went so far as to challenge papal authority on the matter and refused to co-operate with the Vatican’s investigation [3]. This is seen by many observers as part of a larger power struggle between conservative and liberal elements within the Church, represented by Festing and Boeselager respectively (for example, [4]).
Adding yet more intrigue to the tale are rumours that some high-ranking members of the Order have also attended Masonic lodges or other organisations deemed suspect by the Church [5]. Some of this seems to be confirmed by the Pope’s letter, which is dated 1 December 2016 (over a month before Boeselager was reinstated and Festing dismissed).
In the letter Pope Francis states: “In particular, members of the Order must avoid secular and frivoulous (sic) behaviour, such as membership to associations, movements and organisations which are contrary to the Catholic faith and/or of a relativist nature.” He goes on to state that any members of such organisations need to be removed from the Order.
Regarding the condom scandal at the heart of this matter, the Pope states: “I would be very disappointed if ‒ as you told me ‒ some of the high Officers were aware of practices such as the distribution of any type of contraceptive and have not yet intervened to end such things.” He further states that: “I have no doubts that by following the principle of Paul and speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), the matter can be discussed with the Officers and the necessary rectification obtained.”
The letter also confirms that Cardinal Burke had an audience with the Pope on 10 November 2016 to discuss the mounting crisis. This was before Boeselager was even removed by Festing. The text of the letter makes clear that the Pope was already committed to asserting his authority over the Order at this early stage. He writes: “Your Eminence, together with the leaders of the Order, will have to make ever more clear the close connection which unites the Sovereign Military Order of Malta to the Roman Pontiff, both from a structural and operational point-of-view.” Along with the Pope’s letter to Cardinal Burke, WikiLeaks has published several other documents relating to the dispute. These include internal communications and memos, some of which have been quoted in the media.






Leaked DocumentsCaritas_Pro_Vitae_Gradu_Trust

10 June, 2014

Julian Assange has been ‘psychologically tortured’ and must not be extradited to US, says UN expert
Foreign secretary says WikiLeaks founder ‘chose to hide in Ecuadorian embassy and was always free to leave and face justice’
Lizzie DeardenHome Affairs Correspondent @lizziedearden
Friday 31 May 20

Julian Assange has been “psychologically tortured” and should not be extradited to the US, a United Nations official has said.
Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture, said the WikiLeaks founder would not receive a fair trial after visiting him in a British prison.
He said that although Assange was not being held in solitary confinement at HMP Belmarsh, limited legal visits and a lack of access to documents “make it impossible for him to adequately prepare his defence”.

“Mr Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture,” Mr Melzer said.
“I condemn, in the strongest terms, the deliberate, concerted and sustained nature of the abuse inflicted on Mr Assange and seriously deplore the consistent failure of all involved governments to take measures for the protection of his most fundamental human rights and dignity.”
He was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts, who found that Assange’s health had been “seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years”.
They found that Assange showed symptoms of extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.

The strongly-worded statement came a day after Assange was unable to attend a court hearing because of ill health.
“Mr Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture,” Mr Melzer said.
He was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts, who found that Assange’s health had been “seriously affected by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years”.
“I condemn, in the strongest terms, the deliberate, concerted and sustained nature of the abuse inflicted on Mr Assange and seriously deplore the consistent failure of all involved governments to take measures for the protection of his most fundamental human rights and dignity.”
They found that Assange showed symptoms of extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.
The strongly-worded statement came a day after Assange was unable to attend a court hearing because of ill health.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard that the Australian detainee was “not very well” and had been moved to the prison’s medical ward.
A judge scheduled another hearing on 12 June and said it may take place inside HMP Belmarsh, where Assange is serving a 50-week prison sentence for breaking bail conditions.

Julian Assange,WikiLeaks founder said he had a 'moderate to severe depression

Letters from Belmarsh: What Julian Assange says we should do to save his life
By Davey Heller | 18 October 2019,13219
Imprisoned journalist Julian Assange has found another voice from prison in order to urge people to keep fighting for freedom of press, writes Davey Heller.
IN DEFIANCE of all the forces trying to silence Julian Assange, he continues to speak to the world. He is doing so through the only avenue left to him — by sending replies to the letters of supporters that reach him in Belmarsh Prison. These letters are of historic importance, equivalent to the ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ of Martin Luther King Jr.
However, these letters are also of vital current significance. Taken together, they map out the path to building a successful campaign that can free Julian Assange and save his life. The following are proposals for the “free Assange” campaign from Julian’s letters from Belmarsh.
Join or start your own “free Assange” organising committee
‘Start a “free Assange” organising committee in Moscow!’ These were the simple instructions from Julian to a supporter in Moscow. Couldn’t be much clearer, could it? Julian wants people to start “free Assange” groups in their town or city to organise actions demanding he is freed.
There are already a number of such committees organising protests and meetings in Melbourne, Sydney, Stockholm, London, Dusseldorf, Brussels, Denver and Mexico City, but more must be formed.  In Julian’s letter to Gordan Dimmack from May 2019, Julian stated:
‘I am unbroken, albeit literally surrounded by murderers, but the days when I could read and speak and organise to defend myself, my ideals and my people are over until I am free! Everyone else must take my place.’
It has become crystal clear that there is no “official” cavalry coming — not human rights NGOs, not politicians and, by and large, not trade unions. We certainly can’t depend on justice from the UK and U.S. courts. This campaign will be won by ordinary people coming together and fighting. Julian, in a letter to a French supporter released on Twitter, literally wrote in Morse code, ‘S.O.S.’ It is the universal distress call and it is ordinary people who must respond.

Protest and ‘push on that which will move, not simply that which opposes’
Julian, in a letter released on Twitter on 15 August, gave some very specific advice on the strategy that should guide how protests are conducted.
Ariyana Love@mideastrising - Aug 15, 2019 Replying to @mideastrising
"It is people like you, great and small, fighting to save my life that keeps me going. We can win this!" #Free Assange NOW 

Letters toJulian

Remember what’s at stake
On 2 September, outside the Home Office of the UK in London, just before Roger Waters sang Wish You Were Here, famed Australian journalist John Pilger passed on the following message from Assange to the crowd:
“It’s not just me. It’s much wider. It’s all of us. It’s all journalists, and all publishers who do their job who are in danger.”
The campaign to free Julian Assange is far more than the campaign to free one man, it is a central fight in the defence of not just a free press but of all democratic rights. If his prosecution succeeds, then not only journalists but ordinary people who work against the U.S. war machine are vulnerable to state repression. Without a free press, the working class cannot advance any of its interests. 
The truth is all we have
Julian’s letter to Gordan Dimmack finished with the powerful sentence:
‘Truth, ultimately, is all we have.’ The truth, however, is a powerful weapon. There is no doubt if we can get the truth out of why Julian is being persecuted and what is at stake, ordinary people will respond and join the fight to free him en masse. If this was not true, it would not be necessary for the U.S. and its allies to endlessly smear Assange through the press and censor his plight by omission. So, you know what to do. Follow Julian’s advice: start or join a free Assange committee, organise and join protests, write to Julian, stay optimistic and fight, remember what’s at stake and wield the truth as our weapon.

Julian Assange gestures to the media from a police vehicle on his arrival at Westminster Magistrates court on April 11, 2019 in London, England. JACK TAYLOR/GETTY IMAGES

Julian Assange: Campaigner or attention-seeker?
23 May 2019

To his supporters, Julian Assange is a valiant campaigner for truth. To his critics, he is a publicity-seeker who has endangered lives by putting a mass of sensitive information into the public domain.
Assange is described by those who have worked with him as intense, driven and highly intelligent with an exceptional ability to crack computer codes.
He set up Wikileaks, which publishes confidential documents and images, in 2006, making headlines around the world in April 2010 when it released footage showing US soldiers shooting dead 18 civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.
But, later that year, he was detained in the UK - and later bailed - after Sweden issued an international arrest warrant over allegations of sexual assault.
Swedish authorities wanted to question him over claims that he had raped one woman and sexually molested and coerced another in August 2010, while on a visit to Stockholm to give a lecture.
He says both encounters were entirely consensual and a long legal battle ensued which saw him seek asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London to avoid extradition.
After spending almost seven years inside the embassy, Assange was arrested by British police on 11 April 2019. It came after Ecuadorean President Lenín Moreno tweeted his country had taken "a sovereign decision" to withdraw his asylum status. He was sentenced to 50 weeks in jail.
The Wikileaks founder had always argued that he could not leave the embassy because he feared being extradited from Sweden to the US and put on trial for releasing secret US documents. Officers removed him from the embassy's premises and took him into custody at a central London police station.
On 13 May 2019, Sweden reopened the investigation into the rape allegation made against Assange, which he denies.
Ten days later, the US filed 17 new charges against Assange for violating the Espionage Act, related to the publication of classified documents in 2010.
Wikileaks said the announcement was "madness" and "the end of national security journalism".


Assange has been generally reluctant to talk about his background, but media interest since the emergence of Wikileaks has thrown up some insight into his influences.
He was born in Townsville, in the Australian state of Queensland, in 1971 and led a rootless childhood while his parents ran a touring theatre. He became a father at 18, and custody battles soon followed.
The development of the internet gave him a chance to use his early promise at maths, though this, too, led to difficulties.
In 1995 Assange was accused, with a friend, of dozens of hacking activities. Though the group of hackers was skilled enough to track detectives tracking them, Assange was eventually caught and pleaded guilty.
He was fined several thousand Australian dollars - only escaping a prison term on the condition that he did not reoffend.
He then spent three years working with an academic, Suelette Dreyfus - who was researching the emerging, subversive side of the internet - writing a book with her, Underground, that became a bestseller in the computing fraternity.
Ms Dreyfus described Assange as a "very skilled researcher" who was "quite interested in the concept of ethics, concepts of justice, what governments should and shouldn't do".

This was followed by a course in physics and maths at Melbourne University, where he became a prominent member of a mathematics society, inventing an elaborate puzzle that contemporaries said he excelled at.

Wikileaks work

He began Wikileaks in 2006 with a group of like-minded people from across the web, creating a web-based "dead-letterbox" for would-be leakers.
"[To] keep our sources safe, we have had to spread assets, encrypt everything, and move telecommunications and people around the world to activate protective laws in different national jurisdictions," Assange told the BBC in 2011.
"We've become good at it, and never lost a case, or a source, but we can't expect everyone to go through the extraordinary efforts that we do."
He adopted a nomadic lifestyle, running Wikileaks from temporary, shifting locations.
He could go for long stretches without eating, and focus on work with very little sleep, according to Raffi Khatchadourian, a reporter for the New Yorker magazine who spent several weeks travelling with him.
"He creates this atmosphere around him where the people who are close to him want to care for him, to help keep him going. I would say that probably has something to do with his charisma."

Key dates in legal battle

May 2012: The UK's Supreme Court rules he should be extradited to Sweden to face questioning over the allegations
June 2012: Assange enters the Ecuadorean embassy in London
August 2012: Ecuador grants asylum to Assange, saying there are fears his human rights might be violated if he is extradited
August 2015: Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into two allegations
December 2017: Assange is granted Ecuadorean citizenship
October 2018: The Ecuadorian embassy gives Assange a set of house rules to follow
April 2019: Ecuador withdraws Assange's asylum and he is arrested at the embassy
May 2019: Sweden reopens a sexual assault investigation and the US files 17 new charges against Assange

'Smear campaign'

Wikileaks and Assange came to prominence with the release of the footage of the US helicopter shooting civilians in Iraq.
He promoted and defended the video, as well as the massive release of classified US military documents on the Afghan and Iraq wars in July and October 2010.
The whistle-blowing website went on to release new tranches of documents, including five million confidential emails from US-based intelligence company Stratfor.
But it also found itself fighting for survival in 2010, when a number of US financial institutions began to block donations.
Coverage of Assange was then dominated by Sweden's efforts to question him over the 2010 sexual allegations. He said such efforts were politically motivated and part of a smear campaign.
Assange turned to then Ecuador's President Rafael Correa for help, the two men having expressed similar views on freedom in the past.
His stay at the Ecuadorean embassy was punctuated by occasional press statements and interviews. He made a submission to the UK's Leveson Inquiry into press standards, saying he had faced "widespread inaccurate and negative media coverage".
Concerns over his health also surfaced but in August 2014, Assange dismissed reports that he would be leaving the embassy to seek medical treatment.

'Significant victory'

Assange later complained to the UN that he was being unlawfully detained as he could not leave the embassy without being arrested.

In February 2016, the UN panel ruled in his favour, stating that he had been "arbitrarily detained" and should be allowed to walk free and compensated for his "deprivation of liberty".
Assange hailed it a "significant victory" and called the decision "binding", leading his lawyers to call for the Swedish extradition request to be dropped immediately.
The ruling was not legally binding on the UK, however, and the UK Foreign Office responded by saying it "changes nothing".
In 2016, Sweden's chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren travelled to the Ecuadorean embassy in London to question Assange over the 2010 rape allegation. Prosecutors had already dropped their investigation into the sexual assault allegations after running out of time to question and bring charges against him.
Since Sweden dropped its investigation into Assange, the European Arrest Warrant for him no longer stands.
But the Metropolitan Police said Assange still faced the lesser charge of failing to surrender to a court in June 2012, an offence punishable by up to a year in prison or a fine.
And it was a warrant based on this charge which led to his arrest in 2019. Citing the warrant issued by Westminster Magistrates' Court on 29 June 2012, the Metropolitan police said Assange had been "taken into custody at a central London police station where he will remain, before being presented before Westminster Magistrates' Court as soon as possible".

The police said it had been invited into the embassy by the Ecuadorean ambassador.

Ecuador's shifting position
Ecuador's position vis-à-vis Assange changed after President Correa, a strong advocate of Wikileaks, was succeeded in office by Lenín Moreno.
Mr Moreno and his government had grown increasingly frustrated with Assange and his refusal to follow the rules they had imposed for his continued stay in the embassy.
In his video statement, President Moreno said he had "inherited this situation" and that Assange had ignored Ecuador's requests to "respect and abide by these rules".
His decision, Mr Moreno said, followed "repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life protocols" by Assange.
He said that in particular, Assange had "violated the norm of not intervening in the internal affairs of other states", most recently in January 2019 when Wikileaks had released documents from the Vatican.
In a video statement, President Moreno also said that he had requested that Great Britain guarantee that Assange would not be extradited to a country where he could face torture or the death penalty.

PHOTO: Julian Assange will stay in prison as he fights extradition to the US. (Reuters: Henry Nicholls)

Stefania Maurizi speaking in Bergen, Norway about the unjust and wrongful arrest of Julian Assange 

Julian Assange, the Espionage Act and implications for free media
US prosecutors expand the indictment against the WikiLeaks founder under the Espionage Act.

03 Jun 2019 09:59 GMT Media, United States, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, Press Freedom
Seven weeks ago, when Julian Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, headed for possible extradition to the United States, the WikiLeaks editor, Kristinn Hrafnsson, told us the legal charges waiting for Assange in the US were "just the tip of the iceberg". And that there would be more coming.
Last week, he was proven right. US prosecutors have expanded the indictment against Assange by another 17 counts. His maximum jail term has jumped from five years to 175 years. And the US Department of Justice is going after him under a different law now, the Espionage Act.
That law has been used against whistleblowers before, WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning included, but never against a publisher. The alarm bells, including from mainstream media organisations that fear the precedent such a prosecution would set have been going off ever since.
The Assange case isn't really about him or WikiLeaks anymore. It has implications, serious ones - for journalists just about everywhere.
"This is the first time that the government has brought a charge under the 1917 World War One era Espionage Act, which is supposed to cover spying, not disclosing information to journalists," explains Gabe Rottman, project director, Reports Committee for Freedom of the Press. "It's the first time that the government has brought charges under the Espionage Act based exclusively on the receipt and publication of government secrets."

When the Department of Justice announced the indictment, it held a closed-door briefing for journalists. It was on the record but off camera.

The head of the department's national security division was widely quoted on Assange's journalistic credentials.

"The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy", he said. "It is not and never has been the department's policy to target them for reporting. But Julian Assange is no journalist".

"But the question about whether Julian Assange is a journalist or not is irrelevant," contends Trevor Timm, executive director, Freedom of the Press Foundation. "The First Amendment does not bestow upon journalists a certain set of rights, they bestow everybody those rights whether they call themselves a journalist or not ... I think everyone can agree that Donald Trump shouldn't be the one deciding who is a journalist and who isn't."
The use of the Espionage Act by the Department of Justice galvanised media outlets alarmed at the implications. Not for Julian Assange. For themselves.
The Washington Post called the case "a blueprint for making journalists into felons".
The New York Times' editorial board said the indictment "aims at the heart of the First Amendment".
And the Guardian's former editor called the charges "a grave threat to free media".
All that pushback felt like too little, too late. Assange has been treated like a pariah by those same news outlets. And even now, with all the Assange indictments out there, those news outlets are clearly more concerned with possible legal precedents affecting them - than they are about the fate of their one-time source.
"You can be critical of Julian Assange and there may be many good reasons to take issue with the way that Assange has conducted himself and the way that WikiLeaks has released information to the public," says Caroline DeCell, staff lawyer, Knight First Amendment Institute.
"But the charges brought against him in this indictment sweep much more broadly into the realm of typical journalistic practice. The news media organisations that have reacted to this with alarm have done so with a full appreciation of the signal that this indictment sends to the press."
Caroline DeCell - Staff lawyer, Knight First Amendment Institute
Kevin Gosztola - Managing editor, Shadowproof
Trevor Timm - Executive director, Freedom of the Press Foundation
Gabe Rottman - Project director, Reports Committee for Freedom of the Press
Source: Al Jazeera

Read the full timeline of the Arrest and prosecution of Julian Assange
Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy: Timeline

23 May 2019

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he had been staying since 2012.
He sought asylum there to avoid extradition to Sweden on a rape allegation that he denied, and has since been dropped.
Mr Assange remained in the embassy, fearing a lesser charge of failing to surrender to the court in 2012 could lead to his extradition to the US.
The Metropolitan Police say he has been taken into custody and will appear in court.

These are the key dates:

August 2010 - The Swedish Prosecutor's Office first issues an arrest warrant for Mr Assange. It says there are two separate allegations - one of rape and one of molestation. Mr Assange says the claims are "without basis"
December 2010 - Mr Assange is arrested in London and bailed at the second attempt
May 2012 - The UK's Supreme Court rules he should be extradited to Sweden to face questioning over the allegations
June 2012 - Mr Assange enters the Ecuadorean embassy in London
August 2012 - Ecuador grants asylum to Mr Assange, saying there are fears his human rights might be violated if he is extradited
August 2015 - Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into two allegations - one of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion because they have run out of time to question him. But he still faces the more serious accusation of rape
October 2015 - Metropolitan Police announces that officers will no longer be stationed outside the Ecuadorean embassy
February 2016 - A UN panel rules that Mr Assange has been "arbitrarily detained" by UK and Swedish authorities since 2010
May 2017 - Sweden's director of public prosecutions announces that the rape investigation into Mr Assange is being dropped
July 2018 - The UK and Ecuador confirm they are holding ongoing talks over the fate of Mr Assange
October 2018 - Mr Assange is given a set of house rules by the Ecuadorean embassy
October 2018 - It's revealed he is to launch legal action against the government of Ecuador - accusing it of violating his "fundamental rights and freedoms"
December 2018 - Mr Assange's lawyer rejects an agreement announced by Ecuador's president to see him leave the Ecuadorean embassy
February 2019 - Australia grants Mr Assange a new passport amid fears Ecuador may bring his asylum to an end
April 2019 - The Metropolitan Police detain him for "failing to surrender to the court" over a warrant issued in 2012
May 2019 - Sweden reopens sexual assault investigation and US files 17 new charges against Mr Assange

Below is more information on how events have unfolded:

11 August 2010
Julian Assange arrives in Sweden on a speaking trip partly arranged by "Miss A", a member of the Christian Association of Social Democrats. He has not met "Miss A" before but reports suggest they have arranged in advance that he can stay in her apartment while she is out of town for a few days.

14 August 2010
"Miss A" and Mr Assange attend a seminar by the Social Democrats' Brotherhood Movement on "War and the role of media", at which the Wikileaks founder is the key speaker. The two reportedly have sex that night.

17 August 2010
Mr Assange reportedly has sex with a woman he met at the seminar on 14 August, identified as "Miss W".
Some time between 17 and 20 August, "Miss W" and "Miss A" are in contact and apparently share with a journalist the concerns they have about aspects of their respective sexual encounters with Mr Assange.

18 August 2010

Mr Assange applies for a residence permit to live and work in Sweden. He hopes to create a base for Wikileaks there, because of the country's laws protecting whistle-blowers.

20 August 2010
The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Mr Assange based on allegations of rape and molestation.
Both women reportedly say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual.
Wikileaks quotes Mr Assange as saying the accusations are "without basis" and that their appearance "at this moment is deeply disturbing". A later message on the Wikileaks Twitter feed says the group has been warned to expect "dirty tricks".

21 August 2010
The arrest warrant is withdrawn.
"I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne.
Prosecutors say the investigation into the molestation allegation will continue but it is not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant.
The lawyer for the two women, Claes Borgstrom, lodges an appeal to a special department in the public prosecutions office.

31 August 2010
Mr Assange is questioned by police in Stockholm and formally told of the allegations against him, according to his lawyer at the time, Leif Silbersky. The activist denies the allegations.

1 September 2010
Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says she is reopening the rape investigation against Mr Assange.
"Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape."

18 October 2010
The Wikileaks founder (an Australian citizen) is denied residency in Sweden. No reason is given, although an official on Sweden's Migration Board tells the AFP news agency "he did not fulfil the requirements".

18 November 2010
Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Ms Ny says he has not been available for questioning.
By this time Mr Assange has travelled to London. His British lawyer, Mark Stephens, says his client offered to be interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange return to Sweden.

20 November 2010
Swedish police issue an international arrest warrant for Mr Assange via Interpol.

8 December 2010
The Wikileaks founder gives himself up to British police and is taken to an extradition hearing. He is remanded in custody pending another hearing.

16 December 2010
Mr Assange is granted bail by the High Court and is freed after his supporters pay £240,000 in cash and sureties.

24 February 2011
A British court rules that Mr Assange should be extradited to Sweden.

3 March 2011
Lawyers lodge papers at the High Court for an appeal against extradition.

2 November 2011
The High Court upholds the decision to extradite Mr Assange .

5 December 2011
Mr Assange wins the right to petition the UK Supreme Court directly after judges rule that his case raised "a question of general public importance".

30 May 2012

The Supreme Court rules that he should be extradited to Sweden.

19 June 2012
Ecuador's foreign minister says Mr Assange has applied for political asylum at Ecuador's embassy in London.

15 August 2012
Ecuador's foreign minister claims the UK has issued a "threat" to enter the Ecuadorean embassy in London to arrest Mr Assange. The Foreign Office says it reminded Ecuador that it has the power to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil and says Britain has a legal obligation to extradite him.

16 August 2012
Ecuador grants asylum to Mr Assange, saying there are fears his human rights might be violated if he is extradited. Mr Assange describes it as a "significant victory", but the UK government expresses its disappointment.

20 August 2012
The UK insists it will not grant Mr Assange "safe passage" to Ecuador as it seeks a diplomatic solution. Downing Street says the government is legally obliged to extradite him to Sweden.

8 October 2012
Nine people who put up bail sureties for Mr Assange are ordered by a judge to pay thousands of pounds each after his failure to appear in court.

29 November 2012
Ecuador's ambassador says Mr Assange has a chronic lung infection "which could get worse at any moment". The embassy says it has sought assurances Mr Assange would not be arrested if he was taken to hospital.

18 August 2014
Mr Assange says he will leave London's Ecuadorean embassy "soon" after two years of refuge. He does not clarify when he will depart but says it is "probably not" for the reasons reported in the UK press. Stories had suggested he required medical treatment.

13 August 2015
Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into one accusation of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion against Mr Assange because they have run out of time to question him. The more serious allegation of rape is not due to expire until 2020.

12 October 2015
Scotland Yard announces it will no longer be sending officers to stand guard outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London. Officers had been there since 2012, at an estimated cost of more than £12m.
The Metropolitan Police says the effort is "no longer believed proportionate" but it would be deploying "a number of overt and covert tactics to arrest" Mr Assange.

5 February 2016
A UN panel rules that Mr Assange should be allowed to walk free and be compensated for his "deprivation of liberty".
The UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention says the Wikileaks founder has been arbitrarily detained by UK and Swedish authorities since his arrest in 2010, and the detention violates his human, civil and political rights.
Mr Assange hails it a "significant victory" and calls the decision "binding" - but UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond brands the ruling "ridiculous".
The UK Foreign Office says the report "changes nothing" and it will "formally contest the working group's opinion".
Before the ruling, police said he would still be arrested if he left the embassy.

14 November 2016
Sweden's chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren travelled to London to question Mr Assange at the Ecuadorean embassy.
Ms Isgren listened as the questions were put to him by an Ecuadorean prosecutor, under an agreement worked out with Ecuador.

January 2017
Outgoing US President Barack Obama commutes the prison sentence given to US army private Chelsea Manning for leaking classified documents to Wikileaks.
Mr Assange says he stands by his offer to agree to be extradited to the US if Mr Obama granted clemency to Manning.

21 April 2017
US Attorney General Jeff Sessions says arresting Mr Assange is a priority. No charges have been filed against him in the US but US media outlets report that federal prosecutors are considering charges.

17 May 2017
Chelsea Manning is released from Fort Leavenworth military prison in Kansas.

19 May 2017
Sweden's director of public prosecutions announces that the rape investigation into Mr Assange is being dropped.

11 January 2018
The Ecuadorean government confirms Mr Assange was granted Ecuadorean citizenship in December and asks the UK to recognise him as a diplomatic agent - a move that would give him immunity. The UK refuses.

26 January 2018
Lawyers for Mr Assange ask for a UK warrant for his arrest to be dropped.

13 February 2018
An arrest warrant for Mr Assange is upheld by Westminster Magistrate's Court.

24 February 2018
Ecuador says the country's latest efforts to negotiate the departure of Mr Assange from its London embassy have failed.

28 March 2018
Ecuador cuts Mr Assange's internet connection to prevent him from interfering in other countries' affairs.

18 May 2018
Ecuador removes extra security at its London embassy following claims that $5m (£3.7m) was spent to protect Mr Assange.

27 July 2018
The UK and Ecuador confirm they are holding ongoing talks over the fate of Mr Assange. Ecuador's President Lenin Moreno says he was never "in favour" of Mr Assange's activities.

16 October 2018

Mr Assange is given a set of house rules at the Ecuadorean embassy - which include cleaning his bathroom and taking better care of his cat.
He is warned that his feline companion could be confiscated and is also told to look after its "well-being, food and hygiene".
Ecuador also says it will partially restore Mr Assange's internet connection.

19 October 2018
Wikileaks lawyers say its co-founder is going to launch legal action against the government of Ecuador, accusing it of violating his "fundamental rights and freedoms".
It claims the government of Ecuador has refused Mr Assange a visit by Human Rights Watch general counsel Dinah PoKempner and had not allowed several meetings with his lawyers.
In a statement, Wikileaks said: "Ecuador's measures against Julian Assange have been widely condemned by the human rights community."

6 December 2018

Mr Assange's lawyer, Barry Pollack, says his client will not be accepting a deal between the UK and Ecuador to allow him to be released.
The agreement was rejected over fears it could be used as a pretext to extradite him to the US.
"The suggestion that as long as the death penalty is off the table, Mr Assange need not fear persecution is obviously wrong," Mr Pollack says.

23 February 2019
Australia reveals that Mr Assange has a valid passport.
The passport would allow Mr Assange, who was born in Townsville, Australia, in 1971, to return to the country.
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) confirmed that the government had approved a passport application filed by Mr Assange in 2018.

5 April 2019

WikiLeaks tweets that a "high level source within the Ecuadorean state" has told them Mr Assange is to be expelled from the embassy within "hours or days".
A senior Ecuadorean official says no decision has been made to remove him from the London building.

11 April 2019
Mr Assange is arrested at London's Ecuadorean embassy by Met Police officers for "failing to surrender to the court".
Ecuador's President Lenin Moreno says it withdrew Mr Assange's asylum after his repeated violations of international conventions.
But WikiLeaks tweets that Ecuador has acted illegally in terminating Mr Assange's political asylum "in violation of international law".

13 May 2019
Sweden reopens an investigation into a rape allegation made against Mr Assange in 2010, which he denies.
The case was dropped two years before as Swedish prosecutors said they could not progress the case while Mr Assange was still inside the embassy.
Eva-Marie Persson, Sweden's deputy director of public prosecutions, said it would reopen because there was still "probable cause to suspect" that Mr Assange had committed the alleged rape.

23 May 2019
The US justice department file 17 new charges against Mr Assange accusing him of violating the espionage act by publishing classified military and diplomatic documents.
The indictment said Mr Assange had "repeatedly encouraged sources with access to classified information to steal and provide it to Wikileaks to disclose".
Wikileaks tweeted that the announcement was "madness" and the "end of national security journalism and the first amendment".

Albrecht von Boeselager. Photograph: Alessandra Tarantino/AP

Julian Assange: justice denied
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture NILS MELZER talks to Ceren Sagir about the ongoing fears for the journalist’s health

TECHNICALLY, Julian Assange is supposed to be released from his prison cell at HMP Belmarsh on Sunday.

Yet a British court ruled last week that he has to remain in prison after the custody period of his current jail term ends due to his “history of absconding.”

Assange is no longer a serving prisoner but someone facing extradition. Why is Assange actually being held prisoner?

Well, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer tells me that Assange’s case is not about law, but rather politics.

He says: “Trying to win any aspect of this case in the judicial arena has been a losing game for almost a decade because, from the outset, this case has been decided politically. His right to a fair trial has been systematically violated by all involved states.

“If this were about applying the law, he would have never been convicted of bail violation simply for seeking — and receiving — diplomatic asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.

“If this were about applying the law, he would not be in extradition detention under a US indictment of espionage simply for doing investigative journalism.”

It seems that the only thing Assange is on trial for is the publication of the Chelsea Manning leaks.

Melzer says: “The only other charge against him is for allegedly trying to help Manning to decode a password, albeit unsuccessfully and without causing any harm whatsoever.

“Clearly, that is not a serious crime by any standards, and certainly not an offence any prosecutor would spend substantial resources on.”

Nor would he have been stripped of his asylum and his Ecuadorian citizenship without any form of due process and Britain would have given him safe passage from the embassy to Ecuador as required by law on diplomatic relations.

Melzer visited Assange soon after his arrest in May along with two medical professionals. In his official report, Melzer found that Assange had been exposed to psychological torture.

This should have triggered prompt and impartial investigations by the involved states, as unequivocally required by the Convention against Torture.

“By contrast, after 100 days and counting, the UK has not even responded to my official letter yet and Assange’s state of health is reportedly deteriorating as we speak,” Melzer says.

Melzer says he is “appalled” at how Britain is “simply ignoring” his report. He was mandated by the UN human rights council, which includes Britain, to report to states on their compliance with the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment.

Once Melzer investigates a case and makes an official finding that an act of torture has been committed, then they have to at least conduct an impartial and transparent investigation into the case, even if they come to different conclusions.

“If we see the pervasiveness of the due process violations that have plagued this case for almost a decade, it looks highly unlikely that he will ever get an impartial and objective court in which it would be conceivable for him to win his case,” Melzer says.

The medical experts said Assange’s health was in a critical state, and the pressure and anxiety he was under needed to be alleviated urgently.

“They said that, if that pressure was not alleviated soon, his state of health would deteriorate rapidly — and that is exactly what happened,” Melzer says.

Soon after their visit, Assange was transferred to the prison’s health unit and was unable to participate in his first extradition meeting.

“He needs a psychiatrist that is not assigned by the government and he needs unrestricted access to his lawyers and to legal documents,” says Melzer.

During his hearing on Friday September 13, when asked if he understood what was happening, Assange replied: “Not really. I’m sure the lawyers will explain it.”

Melzer says that, to him, did not sound like Assange.

“He is someone extremely intelligent, so if he is in a state where he no longer understands what is going on in court — and the question addressed at that hearing really was not particularly complex — then he certainly is not well,” he says.

The Ecuadorian embassy in London has come out from time to with accusations on Assange’s behaviour, and Melzer is quite critical of the lack of evidence to support this.

He says: “All of the accusations made by Ecuador against Assange don’t really matter, as none of them even remotely could have justified expelling him from the embassy without any legal proceeding.

“Asylum is a status that cannot be revoked without due process of law.”

Melzer says: “If no-one likes Assange, if everybody thinks he’s a rapist, a hacker, a spy and a narcissist who doesn’t care for his cat, then people become more tolerant to the idea that he actually ‘deserves’ persecution and abuse.

“But once the precedent has been set, it can — and will — be applied to any other journalist.

“Then we will have case law authoritatively confirming that any journalist who publishes information that happens to be classified by a state must be regarded as a spy and put behind bars for the rest of his life — and that certainly is not a future I want to live in.”

There is massive international support by millions around to world to have

Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder released to prison as Julian Assange has not commited  any crime 

Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen

John Pilger, Legendary journalist and film-maker discusses the arrest of Julian Assange

Julian Assange: Sweden files request for arrest over rape allegation
Prosecutor asks for order to begin process of extraditing WikiLeaks founder from UK
Reuters Mon 20 May 2019
 Julian Assange is serving a 50-week prison sentence in the UK for skipping bail. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA
The Swedish prosecutor leading an investigation into a rape allegation against Julian Assange has filed a request with a local court for him to be detained in absentia.
If granted, the court order would be the first step in a process to have the WikiLeaks founder extradited from the UK, where he is serving a 50-week sentence for skipping bail.
Sweden reopened the rape investigation last week. It was begun in 2010 but dropped in 2017 after Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Assange, who denies the accusation, was arrested in London last month after spending seven years inside the embassy.
“I request the district court to detain Assange in his absence, on probable cause suspected for rape,” the deputy chief prosecutor, Eva-Marie Persson, said in a statement on Monday.
She said she would issue a European arrest warrant for Assange to be surrendered to Sweden if the court decided to detain him.
Sweden’s decision to reopen the rape investigation casts doubt on where Assange may eventually end up, with US authorities already seeking his extradition over conspiracy charges relating to one of the biggest leaks of classified information.
A lawyer representing Assange in Sweden said he would tell the district court it could not investigate the prosecutor’s request until he had conferred with his client and learned whether or not he wished to oppose a detention order.

“Since he is in prison in England, it has so far not been possible even to speak to him by telephone,” Samuelson told Reuters.
Assange, an Australian national, took refuge in the embassy after fighting unsuccessfully through the British courts to avoid extradition to Sweden.
The British courts will have to rule on the Swedish and US extradition requests. Sajid Javid, the UK home secretary, will have the final say on which takes precedence.
Persson said: “The outcome of this process is impossible to predict.” Citing information from UK authorities, she said Assange would serve 25 weeks of his UK sentence before he could be released.
A British judge has given the US government a deadline of 12 June to outline its case against Assange.
Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy
June 2010 – October 2010
WikiLeaks releases about 470,000 classified military documents concerning American diplomacy and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It later releases a further tranche of more than 250,000 classified US diplomatic cables.
November 2010
A Swedish prosecutor issues a European arrest warrant for Assange over sexual assault allegations involving two Swedish women. Assange denies the claims.
December 2010
He turns himself in to police in London and is placed in custody. He is later released on bail and calls the Swedish allegations a smear campaign.
February 2011
A British judge rules that Assange can be extradited to Sweden. Assange fears Sweden will hand him over to US authorities who could prosecute him.
June 2012
He takes refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He requests, and is later granted, political asylum.
February 2016
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention says Assange has been 'arbitrarily detained' and should be able to claim compensation from Britain and Sweden. Britain and Sweden rebuff the non-binding ruling.
November 2016
Assange is questioned in a two-day interview over the allegations at the Ecuadorian embassy by Swedish authorities.
January 2017
WikiLeaks says Assange could travel to the United States to face investigation if his rights are 'guaranteed'. It comes after one of the site's main sources of leaked documents, Chelsea Manning, is given clemency.

March 2017

Nigel Farage is spotted visiting the Ecuadorian embassy. 
May 2017
Swedish prosecutors say they have closed their seven-year sex assault investigation into Assange. British police say they would still arrest him if he leaves the embassy as he breached the terms of his bail in 2012.

January 2018
Britain refuses Ecuador's request to accord Assange diplomatic status, which would allow him to leave the embassy without being arrested.
February 2018
He loses a bid to have his British arrest warrant cancelled on health grounds.
March 2018
Ecuador cuts off Assange's internet access alleging he broke an agreement on interfering in other countries' affairs.
November 2018
US prosecutors inadvertently disclose the existence of a sealed indictment against Assange.
2 April 2019
Ecuador's President Lenin Moreno says Assange has 'repeatedly violated' the conditions of his asylum at the embassy.

11 April 2019
Police arrest Assange at the embassy after his asylum was withdrawn. Scotland Yard confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition. Assange has been charged by the US with 'a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer.'
1 May 2019
He is jailed for 50 weeks in the UK for breaching his bail conditions back in 2012. An apology letter from Assange is read out in court, but the judge rules that he had engaged in a “deliberate attempt to evade justice”. On the following day the US extradition proceedings were formally started. 
13 May 2019
Swedish prosecutors announce they are reopening an investigation into a rape allegation against Julian Assange.

WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson and Julian Assange;s Lawyer with supporters yelleing Free Julian Assange in London

Promotional Video Three of the film- The Great American Novel
The Great American Novel - The Song - Written and Sung by Larry Norman -​​

Former Baywatch actress Anderson, who has denied dating the Australian but has admitted to being “very close to him”, arrived at the jail in south-east London with WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson.

WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange is facing possible extradition to the United States,

​Image Credit: David G Silvers/ Ecuador Embassy./Flickr

Julian Assange and Sweden’s deputy director of prosecutions Eva-Marie Persson

Julian Assange and Pamela Anderson are said to be close friends 

Then Home Secretary Sajid Javid, pictured, announced he would authorise Assange's extradition to the United States pending a hearing at Westminster Magistrates's Court

Julian Assange: Judge refuses to delay extradition hearing

He's been in an embassy for seven years - but why was Julian Assange there in the first place?

A judge in London has rejected Julian Assange's attempt to delay his US extradition case.
The United States wants to try the Wikileaks co-founder over allegations of leaking government secrets.
His lawyers had asked for more time "to gather evidence" but District Judge Vanessa Baraitser refused and said a full hearing will begin in February.

Assange, 48, mumbled and paused as he gave his own name and date of birth in court.
Asked by the judge for his personal details, frail-looking Assange stuttered - apparently finding it hard to remember when he was born, according to the BBC's Richard Galpin in court.
When his case at Westminster Magistrates' Court was adjourned, the Australian complained that he had not understood proceedings, and said: "This is not equitable."

Assange extradition 'assault on journalism'
Assange to stay in jail over absconding fears
The Julian Assange story

Assange added: "I can't research anything, I can't access any of my writing. It's very difficult where I am."
He told the judge he is up against a "superpower" with "unlimited resources" and that he "can't think properly".
He's been in an embassy for seven years - but why was Julian Assange there in the first place?
Assange was jailed for 50 weeks in May for breaching his bail conditions after going into hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for nearly seven years in order to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex offence allegations - which he has denied.
He was due to be released from Belmarsh prison in London last month, but a judge remanded him in custody because there were "substantial grounds" for believing he would abscond.
In court on Monday, Assange went on to complain about conditions in the high-security prison where he is being held in a medical ward.

'Legally unprecedented'
Asking for a three-month delay to proceedings, Assange's barrister, Mark Summers QC, told the court there was a "direct link" between the "reinvigoration" of the investigation and US President Donald Trump's administration.
"Our case will be that this is a political attempt to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information," he said. "It is legally unprecedented."
Mr Summers also claimed the US was involved in invading his client's legal privilege.

"The American state has been actively engaged in intruding into privileged discussions between Mr Assange and his lawyers in the embassy, also unlawful copying of their telephones and computers (and) hooded men breaking into offices," he said.
However, District Judge Baraitser refused the request to delay the extradition hearing.
She said Assange's next case management hearing will take place on 19 December before the full extradition hearing begins next year.
On Twitter, Assange's mother Christine offered her "deepest gratitude" to the dozens of protesters who appeared outside the courthouse.
Ex-CIA contractor turned whistle-blower Edward Snowden also quoted comments made by Assange's legal team, saying the judge had dismissed their request for more time "despite new evidence".

Former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and journalist John Pilger were among Assange's supporters in the public gallery.
Last week, Assange's legal team said the extradition case was an "outrageous assault on journalism".

WikiLeaks founder Assange struggles to recall his name and age at London court hearing

Key Points

WikiLeaks founder Assange appeared to struggle to recall his name and age at London court hearing

He faces 18 counts in the United States including conspiring to hack government computers and violating an espionage law.
WikiLeaks published caches of leaked military documents and diplomatic cables.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared confused at a London court hearing on Monday, struggling to recall his name and age in his first public appearance in months as he sought to fight his extradition to the United States.
Assange, 48, who spent seven years holed up in Ecuador’s embassy before he was dragged out in April, faces 18 counts in the United States including conspiring to hack government computers and violating an espionage law. He could spend decades in prison if convicted.
On Monday he appeared clean-shaven, without the long beard he had worn at his last public appearance in May, when he was sentenced to 50 weeks jail for skipping bail. He appeared in good health, with his white hair combed back and wearing a navy suit over a light blue sweater and white shirt.

But he mumbled and stuttered for several seconds as he gave his name and date of birth at the start of a preliminary hearing in the case.
When the judge asked him at the end of the hearing if he knew what was happening, he replied “not exactly”, complained about the conditions in jail, and said he was unable to “think properly”.
“I don’t understand how this is equitable,” he said. “I can’t research anything, I can’t access any of my writing. It’s very difficult where I am.”
Assange is being held in British jail pending the U.S. extradition, having served his sentence for skipping bail
He fled to the embassy in 2012 to avoid being sent to Sweden to face sex crimes accusations. He says the U.S. charges against him are a political attempt to silence journalists and publishers, and the Swedish allegations were part of a plot to catch him. Sweden is reviewing the sex crimes cases.
The former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone was among Assange’s supporters in the public gallery, while protesters gathered outside court.
Assange’s lawyer Mark Summers argued that Assange’s extradition hearing, scheduled for February 2020, should be delayed by three months due to the complexity of the case.
“The evidence in this case would test the limits of most lawyers,” Summers told the court. He cited the difficulty of communicating with Assange who he said doesn’t have a computer in prison. The judge denied the request to delay the hearing.
Australian-born Assange made international headlines in early 2010 when WikiLeaks published a classified U.S. military video showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters in Baghdad that killed a dozen people, including two Reuters news staff.
WikiLeaks later angered the United States by publishing caches of leaked military documents and diplomatic cables.
Admirers have hailed Assange as a hero for exposing what they describe as abuse of power by modern states and for championing free speech. As he entered the dock, people in the public gallery raised their fists in solidarity with him.

His detractors have painted him as a dangerous figure complicit in Russian efforts to undermine the West

Mads Palsvig: Banksters vs. Debt Slaves
MADS PALSVIG ~ "Banksters vs. Slaves & 5G Depopulation Agenda" [Age Of Truth TV] [HD]
Age Of Truth TV
A former succesful and ambitious Investment Banker who turned Whistleblower, MADS PALSVIG, has now become a controversial and outspoken Politician in Denmark. He is the founder of a very alternative political party called "JFK21" ~ "Earth Freedom Knowledge", and has been revealing conspiracy secrets about hidden agendas orchestrated by elite "banksters" and members of secret societies, who "run the world" behind the scenes. In this dynamic and eye-opening in-depth hard-talk interview with AGE OF TRUTH TV presenter, Lucas Alexander, Mads Palsvig is telling his surprising life story of his highly succesful life for 30 years working as an Investment Banker and Bank Trader for some of the worlds top banks, such as; Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Credit Suisse First Boston and the 2 top Danish banks, UniBank and Danske Bank. He was stationed in London and Hong Kong trading state obligations. When he was fired without warning, possibly after asking the wrong questions to a member of The Federal Reserve, his life changed dramatically, and he began a new journey as a whistleblower. He discovered the manipulation of how money really is created, and who owns the banks, a banking cartel of top elite bloodline families, commonly known under the popular term, "The Illuminati", and how they dictate the policies of the world: Who gets rich or not, the political system and the mainstream media. Mads Palsvig says that `depopulation´ is the main goal of the elitists behind "The New World Order".

 - The Money Creation. Inside trading and the manipulation of global monetary institutions. - The Earths population aka. Debt Slaves to the global "banksters".
- Reality: Upside down of everything we know. - Illuminati bloodline families and The New World Order.
- Depopulation of 95% of the people on Earth.
- The Federal Reserve & The Council Of Foreign Relations.
- Mind Control and Televison/Media lies.
- DONALD TRUMP and his plan to "drain the swamp".
- Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.
- Elections and the political system.
 - The Yellow Vests.
- Freedom of speech vs. Hate Speech.
- Feminism and the Gender Agenda. - 5G - the big threat to humanity. A.I. (Artificial intelligence).
- Child trafficking and dark rituals. Vatican scandals.
- Faith in God and Christianity. .......that and MUCH MORE in this controversial show featuring Mads Palsvig, who is campaigning to become an elected member of the Danish parliament representing his new political party JFK21. JFK21 / MADS PALSVIG WEBSITE

Julian Assange Is Being Used as a Smokescreen- SCHEER INTELLIGENCE PODCAST
Hosted by Robert Scheer Apr. 26, 2019- Credits:    Host: Robert Scheer   Producer: Joshua Scheer
The recent arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has provoked a wide spectrum of responses in media, but many journalists seem to recognize the Trump Administration’s attack on the publisher as setting a dangerous precedent for freedom of the press. Bruce Shapiro, a contributing editor to The Nation and the executive director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma at Columbia University School of Journalism, disagrees with Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer about Assange’s character, but not about the larger issues at hand.
Shapiro’s main concern about the WikiLeaks founder’s actions center around the alleged assistance he proffered whistleblower Chelsea Manning when she was trying to crack a password and the ethical ramifications of this decision. And yet, the potential use of the Espionage Act, which Shapiro reminds us, “has never been used against a journalist in the history of the United States, or against a publisher” is far more disconcerting to the journalist.
“The danger to press freedom by allowing the government to root around in source relationships like this, far outweighs whatever my judgments on Assange’s own character or state of mind may be,” the journalist tells the Truthdig Editor in Chief in the latest installment of Scheer Intelligence. “I think what we have to focus on now is how the government is … exploiting, you know, the complicating factors of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks to undermine all kinds of watchdog reporting here in the United States.” What’s at stake, in other words, is not one man’s life but rather the very essence of the press freedoms the U.S. was founded on. Assange’s arrest is about national security reporting, the criminalization of source-journalist relationships involving leaking, and, more broadly, an “attempt to criminalize investigative reporting,” argues Shapiro. The Nation editor also notes the courage behind Manning’s decision to go back to jail rather than take further part in the government investigation into Assange.
“Chelsea Manning is doing something that I find unprecedented in the history of American journalism,” says Shapiro. “We often hear, or from time to time hear, about journalists going to jail to protect a source. I’ve never before heard of a source willingly go to jail to protect a journalist.”
Listen to the entire discussion between the two journalists regarding Assange, the rare heroism of whistleblowers and the government’s menacing assault on the First Amendment.

Wikipedia on the Indictment and Arrest of Julian Assange

​Julian Assange, was allegedly investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia grand jury for computer-related crimes committed in the U.S. in 2012. His request for asylum was granted and he remained a resident in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012. In 2019, an indictment from 2017 was made public following the termination of his asylum status and the subsequent arrest by the Metropolitan Police of UK in London.

According to the indictment, Assange was accused of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion in order to help Chelsea Manning gain access to privileged information which he intended to publish on Wikileaks. This is a less serious charge in comparison to those leveled against Manning, and carries a maximum sentence of five years with a possibility of parole.
Assange was arrested on 11 April 2019 by the London Metropolitan Police for failing to appear in court and now faces possible extradition to the US. His arrest caught media attention, and news of it went viral on social media, especially on Twitter and Facebook as it involved the possibility that the founder of Wikileaks and its editor-in-chief would be brought back to the US to face trial. Since his arrest, opinion on social media[by whom?] has been divided as to whether he should be extradited.[original research?] Some[who?] have argued that this is a necessary because he allegedly broke the law by attempting to hack sensitive material about US government operations. Others[who?] have said that such a move would be a threat to freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment. Assange himself does not consent to extradition to the US, in an ongoing move to prevent this from happening.

On May 23, 2019, a grand jury added 17 espionage charges related to his involvement with former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, thus bringing a total of 18 federal charges against Assange in the US.

Background on the Indictment and Arrest of Julian Assange

​Publication of material from Manning
Assange and some of his friends founded Wikileaks in 2006 and started visiting Europe, Asia, Africa and North America to look for, and publish, secret information concerning companies and governments that they felt should be made public. However, these leaks attracted little interest from law enforcement.[original research?
In 2010, Assange was contacted by Chelsea Manning, who gave him classified information containing various military operations conducted by the US government abroad. The material included the Baghdad airstrike of 2007, Granai Airstrike of 2009, the Iraq War Logs, Afghan War Diaries, and the Afghan War Logs, among others.

 Part of these documents were published by Wikileaks and leaked to other major media houses including The Guardian between 2010 and 2011.
Critics of the release included Julia Gillard, then Australian Prime Minister, who said the act was illegal, and the Vice-President of the United States, Joe Biden, who called him a terrorist.[8][9]Others, including Brazilian president Luiz da Silva and Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa supported his actions, while Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said he deserved a Nobel prize for his actions. The Manning leaks also led Wikileaks and Julian Assange to receive various accolades and awards, but at the same time attracted police investigations.[citation needed]

Criminal investigation and indictment

Following the 2010 and 2011 Manning leaks, authorities in the US began investigating Assange and Wikileaks. Specifically, the investigations were being done by the Grand Jury in Alexandria, Virginia as of November 2011, Assange broke bail to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he was wanted for questioning, and became a fugitive. The Australian government distanced itself from Assange.
He then sought and gained political asylum from Ecuador, granted by Rafael Correa, after visiting the country's embassy in London.
At the same time, an independent investigation by the FBI was going on regarding Assange's release of the Manning documents,  and according to court documents dated May 2014, he was still under active and ongoing investigation.

 A warrant issued to Google by the district court cited several crimes, including espionage, conspiracy to commit espionage, theft or conversion of property belonging to the United States government, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and general conspiracy. The indictment continued to remain sealed as of January 2019, although investigations seemed to have intensified as the case neared its statute of limitations.

Arrest by the Metropolitan Police

After Assange's asylum was revoked, the Ambassador of Ecuador to the UK invited the Metropolitan Police into the embassy on 11 April 2019. Following this invitation, Assange was arrested and taken to a central London police station.[21] Assange was carrying Gore Vidal's History of the National Security State during his arrest.[22] The news of the arrest went viral on Twitter and Facebook within minutes of its happening and several media outlets reported it as breaking news. President Moreno is quoted to have referred to Assange as a "spoiled brat" in the wake of the arrest.[23]
Assange was arrested in relation to his indictment in Sweden. Specifically, he was arrested for failing to appear in the UK court, which wanted to extradite him to Sweden to answer to sexual charges which were filed against him in 2012.[24] At a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court a few hours after his arrest, the presiding judge found Assange was guilty of breaching the terms of his bail. [25] On May 1, 2019, Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison.

Reactions to his arrest[edit]

Opinions are divided on the question of the arrest of Assange. United Kingdom, a member of Council of Europe, is committed to respecting Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides the right to freedom of expression and information. This is why, several politicians[who?] and associations[who?] consider that the arrest of the whistleblower constitutes an attack on the freedom of expression and international law.[original research?]

The chairman of the Group of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left, Tiny Kox, asked to Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic, whether the arrest of Julian Assange and possible extradition to the US are in line with the criteria of European Convention on Human Rights, because Julian Assange can benefit from the protection of the right to freedom of expression and information.[27] Eva Joly, magistrate and MEP, states that "the arrest of Julian Assange is an attack on freedom of expression, international law and right to asylum".[28] Sevim Dagdelen, German Bundestag MP, specialized in international law and press law, describes Assange's arrest as "an attack on independent journalism" and says he "is today seriously endangered".

 Dick Marty, a former Attorney General of Ticino and rapporteur on the CIA's secret prisons for the Council of Europe, considers the arrest of whistleblowers "very shocking".[31][32] Christophe Deloire, Secretary General of Reporters Without Borders, believes that "targeting Assange  .....   would be a strictly punitive measure and would constitute a dangerous precedent for journalists, their sources and whistle-blowers".

 British Veterans for Peace UK call British government to « respect the rights of journalists and whistle-blowers and refuse to extradite Julian Assange to the US » and expresses concern « that journalism and whistleblowing is being criminalised by the US and actively supported by British authorities ».

Amnesty International calls on the UK to "refuse to extradite or send in any other manner Julian Assange to the USA where there is a very real risk that he could face human rights violations, including detention conditions that would violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and an unfair trial followed by possible execution, due to his work with Wikileaks.".

Ecuadorian president Lenín Moreno, the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the British Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, U.S. Senator Mark Warner, Hillary Clinton campaign advisor Neera Tanden, and British Prime Minister Theresa May, who commented that "no one is above the law," are in support of the arrest.

Alternatively, it is has been asserted that such a move would be a threat to freedom of speech as protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution. This view is held by Edward Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg, Rafael Correa, Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Corbyn, Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, and Glenn Greenwald, who said "it's the criminalization of journalism".
Ecuadorean president Lenín Moreno said in a video posted on Twitter that he "requested Great Britain to guarantee that Mr Assange would not be extradited to a country where he could face torture or the death penalty. The British government has confirmed it in writing, in accordance with its own rules."[41] On 14 April 2019, however, Moreno stated in an interview with the British newspaper The Guardian that no other nation influenced his government's decision to revoke Assange's asylum in the embassy and that Assange did in fact use facilities in the embassy "to interfere in processes of other states."

Moreno also stated "we can not allow our house, the house that opened its doors, to become a centre for spying" and noted that Assange also had poor hygiene.

Moreno further stated "We never tried to expel Assange, as some political actors want everyone to believe. Given the constant violations of protocols and threats, political asylum became untenable."

 On 11 April 2019, Moreno described Assange as a "bad mannered" guest who physically assaulted embassy security guards.
According to Amnesty International's Massimo Moratti, if extradited to the United States, Assange may face the "risk of serious human rights violations, namely detention conditions, which could violate the prohibition of torture".

Criticsm of Espionage indictment

Widespread criticism from the news media and other public advocates ensued following Assange's arrest on Espionage charges. Multiple organizations and journalists criticized Assange's arrest as a journalist citing first amendment claims.
New York Times state "Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks leader, has been indicted on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the Justice Department announced on Thursday — a novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues."
The Guardian said: "By bringing new charges against the WikiLeaks founder, the Trump administration has challenged the first amendment"
Edward Snowden said: The Department of Justice just declared war .... not on Wikileaks, but on journalism itself. This is no longer about Julian Assange: This case will decide the future of media.
Huffington Post said: "The charges against the WikiLeaks founder bring up huge First Amendment issues."
The Nation said: "The Indictment of Julian Assange Is a Threat to Press Freedom."
The ACLU said: "For the first time in the history of our country, the government has brought criminal charges under the Espionage Act against a publisher for the publication of truthful information. This is a direct assault on the First Amendment."

Aftermath of his arrest
Indictments and possible extradition to the US

Immediately following the arrest of Assange, the Eastern District of Virginia grand jury unsealed the indictment it had brought against him. According to the indictment, Assange was accused of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion in order to assist Chelsea Manning gaining access to privileged information which he intended to publish on WikiLeaks. This is a less serious charge than those leveled against Manning, and carries a maximum sentence of five years.
Assange was arrested in April after being pushed out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he had been living since 2012, avoiding an international arrest warrant, was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison by a British judge on 1st May 2019.
Judge Deborah Taylor said Assange's time in the embassy had cost British taxpayers the equivalent of nearly $21 million, and that he had sought asylum in a "deliberate attempt to delay justice."
Assange offered a written apology in court, claiming that his actions were a response to terrifying circumstances. He said he had been effectively imprisoned in the embassy; two doctors also provided medical evidence of the mental and physical effects of being confined. To which the judge Deborah Taylor said "You were not living under prison conditions, and you could have left at any time to face due process with the rights and protections which the legal system in this country provides".
On 23 May 2019, Assange was indicted, in a superseding indictment, under the Espionage Act, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for offenses relating to the publication of diplomatic cables and other sensitive information.[55] The May 23 indictment adds 17 federal charges to the earlier federal indictment, thus bringing a total of thus bringing a total 18 federal criminal charges against Assange from the US federal government. The charges are related to his involvement with Chelsea Manning, a former US Army intelligence analyst who gave Assange classified information concerning matters surrounding the US Defense Department. 
 Each of the 17 new charges carries maximum individual sentences of 5-10 years in prison.


^ Megerian, Chris; Boyle, Christina; Wilber, Del Quentin (11 April 2019). "WikiLeaks' Julian Assange faces U.S. hacking charge after dramatic arrest in London". The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
^ Sullivan, Eileen; Pérez-Peña, Richard (11 April 2019). "Julian Assange Charged by U.S. With Conspiracy to Hack a Government Computer". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
^ "Assange 'doesn't consent' to US extradition". 2 May 2019. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
^ Jump up to:a b c d
^ Jump up to:a b c
^ "Wikileaks defends Iraq war leaks". BBC. 23 October 2010. Retrieved 12 April 2019.
^ Davies, Nick; Leigh, David (25 July 2010). "Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 12 April 2019.
^ "WikiLeaks acting illegally, says Gillard," Sydney Morning Herald, 2 December 2010. Retrieved 17 March 2014.
^ Ewen MacAskill, "Julian Assange like a hi-tech terrorist, says Joe Biden," The Guardian, 20 December 2010. Retrieved 17 March 2014.
^ "When Wikileaks founder Julian Assange met Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa". The Daily Telegraph. 20 June 2012.
^ 'Russia: Julian Assange deserves a Nobel Prize' ," The Jerusalem Post, 12 November 2010.
^ Joel Gunter, "Julian Assange wins Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism,", 2 June 2011. Retrieved 17 March 2014.
^ Glenn Greeenwald, "FBI serves grand jury subpoena likely relating to WikiLeaks". Salon. 27 April 2011. Retrieved 15 March 2014.
^ Dorling, Philip (20 June 2012). "Assange felt 'abandoned' by Australian government after letter from Roxon". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 13 April 2019. Mr Assange failed last week to persuade the British Supreme Court to reopen his appeal against extradition to Sweden to be questioned about sexual assault allegations
^ "Julian Assange asylum bid: ambassador flies into Ecuador for talks with President Correa". The Daily Telegraph(London). 23 June 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
^ "Julian Assange: Ecuador grants WikiLeaks founder asylum", BBC News, 16 August 2012. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
^ "U.K.: WikiLeaks' Assange won't be allowed to leave",CBS News, 16 August 2012. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
^ David Carr and Ravi Somaiya, "Assange, back in news, never left U.S. radar", The New York Times, 24 June 2013. Retrieved 15 March 2014.
^ Philip Dorling, "Assange targeted by FBI probe, US court documents reveal," The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 May 2014. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
^ Weiner, Rachel; Nakashima, Ellen (1 March 2019). "Chelsea Manning subpoenaed to testify before grand jury in Julian Assange investigation". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 8 March2019.
^ "Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange arrested". BBC. 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
^ "Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, was holding Gore Vidal book during arrest". USA Today. 11 April 2019.
^ "Why Ecuador evicted 'spoiled brat' Assange from embassy". NBC News. Retrieved 12 April 2019.
^ "Julian Assange arrested in London: Live updates - CNN". 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
^ Murphy, Simon (11 April 2019). "Assange branded a 'narcissist' by judge who found him guilty". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
^ Quinn, Ben (1 May 2019). "Julian Assange jailed for 50 weeks for breaching bail in 2012". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 May 2019.
^ "La Convention européenne des droits de l'homme peut-elle empêcher l'extradition de Julian Assange vers les États-Unis ?". L'Humanité (in French). 12 April 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
^ "VIDEO. Eva Joly : "l'arrestation de Julian Assange est une attaque à la liberté de la presse"". Franceinfo (in French). 12 April 2019. Retrieved 13 April 2019.
^ "" Lutter contre l'extradition d'Assange, c'est lutter pour la liberté de la presse "". L'Humanité (in French). 12 April 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
^ "Des parlementaires soutiennent Assange à Londres". VQH (in French). 15 April 2019.
^ ""Je suis choqué. Assange n'a fait que dire la vérité", clame Dick Marty". (in French). 11 April 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
^ "Dick Marty: "Assange ha solo detto la verità". In Ecuador un nuovo arresto". Ticino Today (in Italian). 12 April 2019.
^ "Julian Assange arrêté à Londres et inculpé aux Etats-Unis pour avoir « conspiré » avec Chelsea Manning". 11 April 2019. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
^ "JULIAN ASSANGE - VFP UK STATEMENT". Veterans For Peace UK. 12 April 2019. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
^ "UK must not extradite Julian Assange to USA". Retrieved 5 May 2019.
^ Jump up to:a b "Julian Assange's arrest draws fierce international reaction". Fox News. 11 April 2019.
^ "World reacts to arrest of WikiLeaks founder of Julian Assange". The CEO Magazine. 12 April 2019.
^ "Edward Snowden, Rafael Correa Condemn Julian Assange Arrest: 'This Is a Dark Moment for Press Freedom'". Newsweek. 11 April 2019.
^ "The Assange prosecution threatens modern journalism". The Guardian. 12 April 2019.
^ "Daniel Ellsberg On Assange Arrest: The Beginning of the End For Press Freedom". The Real News. 11 April 2019.
^ "UK pledges it won't send Assange to country with death penalty: Ecuador". Reuters. 11 April 2019.
^ Jump up to:a b c editor, Patrick Wintour Diplomatic (14 April 2019). "Assange tried to use embassy as 'centre for spying', says Ecuador's Moreno". Retrieved 5 May2019.
^ Jump up to:a b "Ecuador says Assange used embassy to spy". 15 April 2019. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
^ "'Spoiled Brat' Julian Assange Hit Embassy Guards, Ecuador Says". 4 May 2019. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
^ "'Spoiled Brat' Julian Assange Hit Embassy Guards, Ecuador Says". Retrieved 5 May 2019.
^ "UK's Labour Party calls for PM to prevent Assange's extradition". Al-Jazeera. 12 April 2019.
^ "Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues". NYT. 23 May 2019.
^ "Indicting a journalist? What the new charges against Julian Assange mean for free speech". The Guardian. 23 May 2019.
^ "Indicting a journalist? What the new charges against Julian Assange mean for free speech". Russia Today. 23 May 2019.
^ "What Julian Assange's Arrest Means For Freedom Of The Press". Huffington Post. 23 May 2019.
^ "The Indictment of Julian Assange Is a Threat to Press Freedom". The Nation. 23 May 2019.
^ "First time in history". The ACLU. 23 May 2019.
^ Sullivan, Eileen; Pérez-Peña, Richard (11 April 2019). "Julian Assange Charged by U.S. With Conspiracy to Hack a Government Computer". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
^ "British Judge Sentences Julian Assange To 50 Weeks In Prison". Retrieved 1 May 2019.
^ Savage, Charlie; Goldman, Adam (23 May 2019). "Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 23 May 2019.

Julian Assange,WikiLeaks founder, 

Dealmaker-Al Yousef-WikiLeaks
Today, 28 September 2018, WikiLeaks releases a secret document from the ICC portaining to a dispute over a commission payment in relation to a $3.6 billion arms deal 28th September 2018
Today WikiLeaks publishes a secret document from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration, pertaining to a dispute over commission payment in relation to a $3.6 billion arms deal between French state-owned company GIAT Industries SA (now Nexter Systems) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The agreement was for the sale of 388 Leclerc combat tanks, 46 armoured vehicles, 2 training tanks, spare parts and ammunition. It was signed in 1993 and scheduled to be completed in 2008.
The case brought before the ICC arbitration tribunal was a claim from Abbas Ibrahim Yousef Al Yousef, a UAE businessman, that GIAT had not honoured a contract to pay him a 6,5% commission on the deal or almost $235 million total. GIAT stopped paying after sending Al Yousef over $195 million through his company Kenoza Consulting & Management Inc., which was registered in the British Virgin Islands. Al Yousef demanded the nearly $40 million that remained outstanding.
GIAT's lawyers maintained that they had to stop payments as they became illegal when the OECD Anti-Corruption Convention was transposed into French law in the year 2000. They claimed "Kenoza intended to commit and indeed committed corruption acts". Al Yousef firmly denied that any part of the commission had been used to bribe UAE officials or used in any corrupt acts. As GIAT did not produce any evidence for the claim, the ICC Tribunal did not rule on the issue but noted that "...if the excessive nature of the compensation for the Claimants service must be taken as evidence of a corrupt purpose of the Agency Agreement, this purpose must have been known and intended by both Parties to the agreement".
The Tribunal did investigate what services Al Yousef provided to justify the excessive commission. Despite claims to the contrary, the Tribunal found that Al Yousef did not play an important role in the development of the Leclerc tank. The tanks were fitted with German engines, which created an obstacle as this would violate laws forbidding German arms sales to the Middle East. Al Yousef claimed he had successfully lobbied German authorities to obtain a waiver from these laws in "...a process which involved decision makers at the highest levels, both in France and Germany". During a witness statement, Al Yousef could not remember the names of any German officials and told the Tribunal he had used lobbyists instead of meeting with German authorities directly.
Surprisingly, Al Yousef told the Tribunal that had he been on a retainer, he would have asked GIAT to pay him a million dollars a month as a consultant. That would have brought him $51 million to $60 million rather than nearly $235 million. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that "...the contractual commission rates is far above anything that could be justified (...). The remuneration is excessive by the standard which Mr Al Yousef himself set and by any standard which was raised in the arbitration". His claims were dismissed and Al Yousef was ordered to pay the entire cost of arbitration by the Tribunal ($550 000) plus a portion of GIAT’s legal costs (€115 000).
Leaked Do
Media Partners

Julian Assange Must Stay in Jail as Flight Risk, U.K. Judge Rules
Sept. 16, 2019
LONDON — Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, must remain in prison until an extradition hearing next year, a judge in London ruled on Friday, citing a “history of absconding,” according to British news agencies.
Mr. Assange had been scheduled to be released next week, after serving a 50-week sentence for jumping bail in 2012 and taking refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy rather than accepting extradition to Sweden to face a rape accusation.
But he is wanted in the United States, where he faces charges of conspiracy to hack government computers, and of obtaining and publishing secret documents in 2010.
Mr. Assange has also been under attack for WikiLeaks’ release during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign of thousands of Democratic Party emails stolen by Russian hackers, in what investigators say was an effort to damage the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
But Mr. Assange, who denied that the emails were stolen, has not been charged in connection with their release.
At the hearing Friday, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser told Mr. Assange that as a person facing extradition, he would have to remain in prison, the BBC reported. “In my view I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again,” she said.
When asked if he understood what was going on, Mr. Assange, who appeared via video link from Belmarsh Prison in Southeast London, wearing a loosefitting T-shirt, said, “Not really.”
“I’m sure the lawyers will explain it,” he said, according to the British television network ITV.
Lawyers for Mr. Assange and other supporters have described him as in deteriorating physical and mental health. He was said to be too unwell to attend one previous hearing even by video link.
Mr. Assange’s legal team did not immediately respond to questions. According to ITV, his lawyers declined to make an application for bail on Friday.

Julian Assange Tells Court He is “Unable to Think” Due to Treatment in Prison
Assange could barely say his name and had trouble recalling his birthday when he was asked by the court.

CORRUPTION  |  NEWS - OCT 22, 2019 AT 9:44 AM.

(TMU) — Embattled Wikileaks founder Julian Assange appeared in a London court this week to fight his impending extradition to the United States, as groups of supporters gathered outside to protest his incarceration.
“I can’t research anything [in prison], I can’t access any of my writing, it’s very difficult where I am to do anything,” he said.

“This is not equitable what’s happening here,” he added.

His attorney, Mark Summers, QC, called the charges against Assange a “concerted and avowed drive to escalate its existing war on whistleblowers, to encompass investigative journalists. Our case is that it is a political attack to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing [classified] information.”

Summers also noted that evidence has come forward that Spanish security firm Undercover Global was spying on Assange for the United States.

“The American state has been actively engaged in intruding on privileged discussions between Assange and his lawyers,” Summers said, pointing to evidence that Assange has had all of his communications monitored over the past several years. He even mentioned, “hooded men breaking into lawyers’ offices.”

There have also been concerns that his health is deteriorating while in custody. During the hearing this week, Assange appeared thin, pale, and in generally bad condition. He reportedly even had trouble recalling his birthday when he was asked by the court.
Barrister Greg Barns, who acts as one of Assange’s Australian advisers, told ABC Radio that it is currently impossible for Assange to put together a legal defense for himself under these conditions.

“I think it’s been a very difficult time for him. There’s no doubt that his health has been adversely impacted by seven years living effectively without natural sunlight and cooped up in the embassy and now at Belmarsh Prison. Prisons are no place for people who are unwell and generally a person’s health deteriorates in the prison environment, particularly Belmarsh Prison, which is a harsh prison,” Barns said.
“It does make it difficult in terms of preparation of his case. He’s got to be able to instruct his lawyers, this is a complicated case, and he’s going to be able to do that in circumstances where his health improves,” he added.

Earlier this year, Assange was indicted on 17 new charges under the Espionage Act in the United States, which together carry a potential prison sentence of 175 years. However, over a decade of his life has already been taken away as a result of the U.S. government’s crusade against him.
In this week’s hearing, his request for more time to prepare for his case was ultimately denied by the judge. He is scheduled to appear in court again in February of 2020.

By John Vibes | Creative Commons |

Barnaby Jones former deputy Australian Prime Minister
So far, Barnaby Joyce's intervention has failed to win over the Government's senior leaders. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)

Julian Assange latest: Pamela Anderson arrives for visit with jailed Wikileaks founder
JULIAN Assange has been visited in jail by his friend and model Pamela Anderson.By REBECCA PERRING
PUBLISHED: 11:31, Tue, May 7, 2019 

Ms Anderson was pictured arriving at Belmarsh prison where the Wikileaks founder is serving a 50 weeks sentence for breaching his bail conditions. Julian Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London while he was wanted over allegations of sexual offences, remaining there for seven years in an attempt to avoid arrest. Former Baywatch actress Anderson, who has denied dating the Australian but has admitted to being “very close to him”, arrived at the jail in south-east London with WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson.
The US actress met Assange on several occasions when he lived at the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
Her visit comes after she tweeted her support for Wikileaks founder, quoting from a famous poem in an apparent attempt to compare him to Holocaust survivors.
Ms Anderson took to social media, posting a picture of Assange along with the words: “First they came for Assange, and I did not speak out - because I was not a journalist.”
Assange was dragged out of the embassy last month and has been sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for a bail violation.
He is fighting extradition to the United States where he is wanted for questioning over the activities of WikiLeaks.
Mr Hrafnsson said Assange is in "general" solitary confinement because he mostly spends 23 hours a day in his cell, adding that the situation was "unacceptable".  

Speaking after a court hearing last week, he said: "We are worried about Julian Assange. We are hearing that the situation in Belmarsh Prison is appalling because of austerity and cutbacks.
"For the last weeks since he was arrested, he has spent 23 out of 24 hours a day in his cell most of the time.
"That is what we call in general terms solitary confinement. That's unacceptable. That applies to most of the prisoners in that appalling facility. It is unacceptable that a publisher is spending time in that prison."

United Nations rights experts have voiced concern about the "disproportionate" sentence given to the WikiLeaks founder as well as his detention in a high-security prison.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said in a statement on Friday it was "deeply concerned" about the "disproportionate" sentence imposed on Assange.
"The Working Group is of the view that violating bail is a minor violation that, in the United Kingdom, carries a maximum sentence of 12 months in prison.
"It is worth recalling that the detention and the subsequent bail of Mr Assange in the UK were connected to preliminary investigations initiated in 2010 by a prosecutor in Sweden.
"It is equally worth noting that that prosecutor did not press any charges against Mr Assange and that in 2017, after interviewing him in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, she discontinued investigations and brought an end to the case.
"The Working Group is further concerned that Mr Assange has been detained since 11 April 2019 in Belmarsh prison, a high-security prison, as if he were convicted for a serious criminal offence.
"This treatment appears to contravene the principles of necessity and proportionality envisaged by the human rights standards."
The Working Group has previously stated that Assange was arbitrarily detained in the Ecuadorean embassy and should have had his liberty restored.
Julian Assange latest: Pamela Anderson tweeted her support for the Wikileaks founder

Julian Assange's legal team prepares for a lengthy free speech battle
"This precedent will be used against other media organizations," Assange's London-based counsel said.
May 27, 2019,

By Linda Givetash
LONDON — WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange is unlikely to land on American soil any time soon as his legal team gears up for a drawn-out battle that centers on his freedom of speech.
The United States is seeking the extradition of Assange from Britain to face numerous charges for computer hacking and publishing classified material. The initial charge accused Assange of conspiringwith former Army intelligence officer Chelsea Manning to crack a Department of Defense password, while another 17 charges under the Espionage Act were tacked on by the Department of Justice on Thursday.
Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, told NBC News she's preparing for "a big extradition fight" and argued, along with advocates in the U.S., that the latest indictment threatens the First Amendment.
"We are concerned about the free speech implications," she said. "This precedent will be used against other media organizations."
However, an extradition request related to a re-opened rape investigation in Sweden threatens to take priority.
Assange is being held in a London jail after being taken out of the Ecuadorian embassy in April and arrested for jumping bail after originally being accused of rape and sexual assault in Sweden in 2010.
Although there is a clear process for extradition from the U.K., experts say Assange's case is unique on a number of grounds and could pose a lengthy legal battle.
Assange's defense is likely to claim the charges are politically-motivated and violate his freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 in the European Convention on Human Rights, according to Michael Drury, a lawyer specializing in extradition cases for the London-based firm BCL Solicitors.
It stands to be a "highly unusual" argument in an extradition case, Drury told NBC News. Extradition cases more often see claims that a defendant would be treated inhumanely or harmed.
The U.S., Britain and European states also have a shared interest in the handling of state secrets since an agreement prompted by American officials to go after leakers was reached more than a decade ago, said Richard Aldrich, professor of international security at the University of Warwick. Countries are anxious about the possibility of journalists and groups like Wikileaks attaining and publishing secrets and intelligence online.
"This is all about trying to recover state secrecy," Aldrich explained. "The U.S. said we can’t do anything about the journalists, but we will go after the sources and the leakers vigorously."
In the past 10 years, more sources and whistleblowers have been prosecuted in the U.S. than previously through history, he said.
"There's a major campaign, people are being put away under the espionage act for potentially decades and the United States is determined to make an example of these people," he said.
Assange will likely find himself on trial in the U.S. where it will be up to the courts to decide whether he becomes one of those examples, Aldrich said, adding, "but exactly how that happens is difficult to predict."

The U.S. is almost always successful in extradition cases from Britain, Drury said.
British law requires the first hearing in an extradition case to be heard within 21 days of the order being filed. But given the complexity of the arguments, Drury said it could likely take up to a year for the case to be presented and delivered a verdict. If either side appeals the decision, it could extend the process another six to 12 months.
In the meantime, it's unlikely Assange will be granted bail because of the previous breach, said Drury.
With Swedish prosecutors announcing they have requested a detention order against Assange last week after reopening a sexual assault case against him, the entire U.S. extradition case could be further put on hold. Extradition is not normally a political decision, but Britain's home secretary has the power to suggest the courts prioritize one request over another.
Last month, dozens of British lawmakers signed a letter to Home Secretary Sajid Javid demanding he prioritize any extradition order made by Sweden.
British politicians wanting "to avoid being caught in the crossfire" of the American legal showdown would be enticed to hand Assange over to the Scandinavian nation, said Aldrich. "It’s more politically acceptable to extradite on the sorts of charges that the Swedes have raised."
But the political leadership in Britain is facing upheaval after Prime Minister Theresa May announced her resignation on Friday, adding to the uncertainty of which case would take priority. "We could have any one of 10 candidates in Downing Street in very short order and each person would take a different view on this," Aldrich said.
Even if Assange faces trial or is convicted in Sweden, Drury said he would eventually find his way back to British court to face the U.S. extradition order.
"Putting it entirely cynically, you can't get rid of the problem by sending him to Sweden," he said.
Associated Press and Michele Neubert contributed.

Julian Assange in 'a crazy situation', set to receive request for a visit from George Christensen
ABC Far North 
By Samuel Davis and Adam Stephen
 31st October 2019

North Queensland politician George Christensen is fighting to bring Julian Assange home and will seek the British Government's permission to meet with the controversial WikiLeaks founder ahead of his full extradition hearing early next year.
"It's about the principle of someone who's published information on the internet and fallen afoul of laws [in a country] that they're not a citizen of, that they actually haven't set foot in," Mr Christensen said.

"You've got to question how that is possible. That's a crazy situation that I don't think most Australians would actually agree with."
The Mackay-based Member for Dawson is co-chair of a cross-party Parliamentary Working Group, a role shared with independent MP Andrew Wilkie, questioning whether the Australian citizen should be forced to face espionage charges in the United States.
If found guilty in the US, Mr Assange faces a maximum sentence of 175 years in jail.
But Mr Christensen said WikiLeaks had acted in the public interest when it published classified information, including diplomatic cables leaked by US intelligence analyst leaked by US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2010.
"He has published information that may have been sensitive in the United States, but he wasn't in the United States when he published it, nor is he a citizen of the United States," Mr Christensen said.
"So, I question how someone can fall foul of a law when they are not a citizen or resident of that country."

Determined to 'see and talk' with Assange
Mr Christensen said the working group would seek permission to visit Mr Assange in order to determine what support they can provide.
Its members have reached across the political divide, with Greens leader Richard Di Natale, Adam Bandt and Peter Whish-Wilson joining Centre Alliance MPs Rebekha Sharkie and Rex Patrick, plus independent MP Zali Steggall.
It comes after former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce also called for the Federal Government this month to step in and try to stop the Australian being extradited from the United Kingdom to the US on espionage charges.

"I think that it's right that interested members of Parliament from Julian Assange's home country should be able to see and talk with him," Mr Christensen said.

"I certainly will be putting that request to the British Government.

"What I'd like to know is whether poor treatment [may have affected] his poor state of health and [how] the circumstances of his jailing have impacted on that.

"I'd like to know that by looking at him and talking to him myself."
'His mental health is suffering terribly'
It follows a challenging period for Mr Assange and his legal team, whose request to have his hearing postponed was denied by Judge Vanessa Baraitser in London earlier this month.
Spokesperson for lobby group Bring Assange Home, Louise Bennet, said the whistleblower's health has deteriorated dramatically since being arrested seven months ago at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
"He's in a really horrific situation where his mental health is suffering terribly," Ms Bennet said.
"I understand he's in solitary confinement. He's not allowed to speak to anyone and he's in this situation 23 hours of the day.

"A lot of people that have been working with him closely have said they're not sure he will survive the process if it drags out too long, let alone if it goes to the US, which is a death sentence for him."
Mr Christensen said his message to Mr Assange was simple.
"I'd just like him to know that there are people fighting for him back in Australia and are fighting for the principles of freedom that underpin his case. It is my hope that he is returned to Australia," he said.
"Before the inception of this working group I had made contact with people in my Government and the British Government about this.
"They probably weren't going to listen to me — a little, old backbencher from North Queensland — but I wanted it on record that I thought there was something incredibly wrong going on."
The next case management hearing will be held on December 17.

Topics: federal-government, nationals, journalism, information-and-communication, international-law, world-politics, united-kingdom, mackay-4740, united-states, england

Julian Assange: Sweden REOPENS rape investigation - Pamela Anderson issues UN warning
SWEDEN is reopening a rape investigation against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a month after he was removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.By SIMON OSBORNE
PUBLISHED: 10:08, Mon, May 13, 2019 

Deputy director of prosecutions Eva-Marie Persson announced the decision at a press conference in Stockholm today. It leaves Britain facing a decision over whether to extradite Assange to the Sweden or to the US where he is wanted over his alleged role in the release of classified military and diplomatic material in 2010. Actress Pamela Anderson, a close friend and confidante of Assange, was quick to react to the Swedish decision.  

The Baywatch star said: “I’m not surprised. The Swedish prosecutor authority keeps closing and reopening, closing and reopening the investigation and it is full of irregularities as stated by the UN.
“Julian is an Aussie bloke who took on governments - and who wins this fight will depend on you.”

Swedish prosecutors filed preliminary charges against Assange after he visited the country in 2010 but seven years later, a case of alleged sexual misconduct was dropped when the statute of limitations expired.
That left a rape allegation, which could not be pursued while Assange was living at the embassy.

But the woman who made the allegation has called for the case to be revived and Swedish prosecutors have been considering their options since Assange’s arrest in London last month when Ecuador abruptly withdrew its asylum.

Julian Assange has 
 always denied the allegations, saying the sex was consensual.
The alleged victim’s lawyer, Elizabeth Massi Fritz, said Assange’s arrest came as a shock but “what we have been waiting and hoping for since 2012 has now finally happened”.
She said: “No rape victim should have to wait nine years to see justice be served.”

The 47-year-old is currently serving an 50-week jail sentence after Westminster Magistrates’ Court found him guilty of a British charge of breaching bail.
In a letter read to the court, Assange said he had found himself “struggling with difficult circumstances”.

He apologised to those who “consider I’ve disrespected them”.
He said: ”I did what I thought at the time was the best or perhaps the only thing that I could have done.”

In mitigation, Mark Summers QC said his client was “gripped” by fears of rendition to the US over the years because of his work with whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.

He said: “As threats rained down on him from America, they overshadowed everything.”
Sentencing him at Southwark Crown Court, Judge Deborah Taylor told Assange it was difficult to envisage a more serious example of the offence.
She said: “By hiding in the embassy you deliberately put yourself out of reach, while remaining in the UK.

Julian Assange, 47, arrived at Southwark Crown Court this morning (May 1) for his sentencing.

Mads Palsvig: Banksters vs. Debt Slaves
MADS PALSVIG ~ "Banksters vs. Slaves & 5G Depopulation Agenda" [Age Of Truth TV] [HD]
Age Of Truth TV

A former succesful and ambitious Investment Banker who turned Whistleblower, MADS PALSVIG, has now become a controversial and outspoken Politician in Denmark. He is the founder of a very alternative political party called "JFK21" ~ "Earth Freedom Knowledge", and has been revealing conspiracy secrets about hidden agendas orchestrated by elite "banksters" and members of secret societies, who "run the world" behind the scenes. In this dynamic and eye-opening in-depth hard-talk interview with AGE OF TRUTH TV presenter, Lucas Alexander, Mads Palsvig is telling his surprising life story of his highly succesful life for 30 years working as an Investment Banker and Bank Trader for some of the worlds top banks, such as; Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Credit Suisse First Boston and the 2 top Danish banks, UniBank and Danske Bank. He was stationed in London and Hong Kong trading state obligations. When he was fired without warning, possibly after asking the wrong questions to a member of The Federal Reserve, his life changed dramatically, and he began a new journey as a whistleblower. He discovered the manipulation of how money really is created, and who owns the banks, a banking cartel of top elite bloodline families, commonly known under the popular term, "The Illuminati", and how they dictate the policies of the world: Who gets rich or not, the political system and the mainstream media. Mads Palsvig says that `depopulation´ is the main goal of the elitists behind "The New World Order".

 - The Money Creation. Inside trading and the manipulation of global monetary institutions. - The Earths population aka. Debt Slaves to the global "banksters".
- Reality: Upside down of everything we know. - Illuminati bloodline families and The New World Order.
- Depopulation of 95% of the people on Earth.
- The Federal Reserve & The Council Of Foreign Relations.
- Mind Control and Televison/Media lies.
- DONALD TRUMP and his plan to "drain the swamp".
- Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.
- Elections and the political system.
 - The Yellow Vests.
- Freedom of speech vs. Hate Speech.
- Feminism and the Gender Agenda. - 5G - the big threat to humanity. A.I. (Artificial intelligence).
- Child trafficking and dark rituals. Vatican scandals.
- Faith in God and Christianity. .......that and MUCH MORE in this controversial show featuring Mads Palsvig, who is campaigning to become an elected member of the Danish parliament representing his new political party JFK21. JFK21 / MADS PALSVIG WEBSITE

ABOUT: Tor Ekeland is a Brooklyn lawyer, and represents people accused of computer crimes in federal and state courts nationally. He can be found on Twitter at @TorEkelandPLLC.

The core problem with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is that it doesn't clearly define one of the central things it prohibits: unauthorized access to a computer.
Assange's factually threadbare indictment doesn't give much indication of how strong a conspiracy case the government has.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act collided last month when the UK arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on, among other things, a US extradition request for computer crime. He has since been sentenced to 50 weeks in a British prison. For roughly seven years before his arrest, he’d been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, but on April 11, the Ecuadorian government withdrew his asylum. Now the UK courts will evaluate the US’s request to send Assange to Virginia to stand trial in federal court for a single felony charge of conspiracy to commit unauthorized access to a government computer, a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
After Assange’s arrest, many reached out to ask me about the CFAA. For years, I've represented hackers in federal criminal cases nationally involving the CFAA, including Lauri Love, whom the US unsuccessfully tried to extradite from the UK. The US indicted Love in three separate federal courts in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, for hacking of a number of government sites including NASA, the FBI, the United States Sentencing Commission, and the Bureau of Prisons. This was part of #OpLastResort, in protest of the CFAA prosecution and death of computer science pioneer Aaron Swartz, whose suicide in 2013 was widely viewed as resulting from a draconian CFAA prosecution. Whether intended or not, the CFAA makes it easy for a prosecutor to bring felony computer crime charges even when there’s little or no harm.
The CFAA is the federal government's primary anti-hacking statute. Created in 1984, it prohibits unauthorized access to a computer, system, or network and unauthorized deletion, alteration, or blocking of access to, data or information. It is both a civil and criminal statute, meaning that people and businesses can use it to sue each other for private wrongs, and the government can use it to put you in jail for public wrongs. Its dual nature gives rise to a problematic feature: most of the law interpreting it comes from civil cases where the stakes aren't as high as in a criminal case. Thus, the quality of reasoning in civil cases, despite frequent lip service from courts to the contrary, isn't as robust as in a hard-fought criminal case. Because at the end of the day, if you lose a civil case you just lose money. If you lose a criminal case, you lose your liberty. But the CFAA doesn’t clearly tell you all the ways it can be used to take away your liberty.
The core problem with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is that it doesn't clearly define one of the central things it prohibits: unauthorized access to a computer. The courts across the country aren't any help on this front, issuing conflicting decisions both with other jurisdictions and often within their own. Under the CFAA, what is a felony in one jurisdiction is legal in another. This lack of definitional clarity allows prosecutors to charge felonies even when the harms are minimal, questionable, or just political views that DOJ doesn't like. This is a serious problem, given that much political speech and protest these days is done with computers. And DOJ has previously used the CFAA in a politically charged prosecution.
In 2011, DOJ charged the politically outspoken Aaron Swartz under the CFAA for going into an open server closet at MIT, a mecca of modern American hacking, and downloading academic articles—many of which were publicly funded—for public distribution. Even though the extent of any harm was questionable—this was a mere copying of articles—DOJ charged him with felony unauthorized access to a computer, unauthorized damage to a protected computer, felony aiding and abetting of both, and wire fraud. He faced a maximum sentence of decades and large fines. The punishment sought was strikingly disproportionate to the alleged harm.
On January 11, 2013, Aaron Swartz killed himself before there was any trial. Swartz's death was a loss to our society, given the innovations he contributed to it, like codeveloping RSS and cofounding Reddit. Many, myself included, view his prosecution as a political one directed against Swartz’s belief that information should be free.
Likewise, the Assange prosecution looks more like an attack on core political speech protected by the First Amendment than a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Assange is facing a single count indictment for conspiracy to violate the CFAA. The indictment stems from an incident in 2010 when Assange allegedly told then-Army private Chelsea Manning, who was leaking classified materials to Assange to be published on WikiLeaks, that he would help her crack a password to gain access to military computers. Prosecuting Assange for a computer crime sidesteps the elephant in the room: this is the prosecution of a publisher of information of interest and importance to the public about our government. The First Amendment protects the act of publishing that information. Therefore, the act being prosecuted is inextricably linked to the act of obtaining this information because the charged crime is conspiracy to access the system with the information of public import. Prison time for Assange might deter others from publishing information that exposes the inner workings of government.

Assange and WikiLeaks are publishers just like The New York Times. And if it was legal for The New York Times to publish the classified Pentagon Papers detailing the US' lies when it came to Vietnam, it's legal for WikiLeaks to do the same.

The indictment dances around this issue by trying to limit everything to a technical computer crime conspiracy. The indictment accuses Assange of a single count of conspiring to hack a password to gain unauthorized access to a government computer. As such, it rests squarely in the anti hacking purpose of the CFAA—preventing someone from hacking into a system. But note, under the CFAA it's not against the law to crack a password. You have to crack a password, and then use it to gain unauthorized access to a system. Gaining, attempting to gain, or conspiring to gain, access is the critical element. And Assange's factually threadbare indictment doesn't give much indication of how strong a conspiracy case the government has.
The indictment and its context make it obvious that DOJ is struggling with this issue and may bring more charges, including espionage charges, that will turn Assange's case into a First Amendment battle royale. The narrowness of the indictment and the fact that its theory of liability is based on conspiring to hack a password—and not the theft and publication of information—is evidence that DOJ is dancing around the issue. We know that a grand jury is reviewing the possibility of another indictment against Assange, because Chelsea Manning is in jail for refusing to testify against Assange in front of it. And we know, because of the extradition treaty with the UK, that the US has 65 days to submit its final charges from the time it submitted its extradition request. This means that DOJ has until the middle of June to bring final charges.
If DOJ brings espionage charges, it's going to bring out the First Amendment heavy-hitters. The Espionage Act has a long history of being used to silence political dissent going back to President John Adams’ administration, which used the Alien and Sedition Acts to prosecute critics of its foreign policy. In the 20th century, the Alien and Sedition Acts turned into the Espionage Act, which is used to prosecute whistleblowers more than spies. It's no coincidence that the first Supreme Court First Amendment cases involve Espionage Act prosecutions for political speech.
DOJ can try and dodge the First Amendment implications of its actions by sticking with the current indictment. If so, Assange has some obvious defenses. For instance, the government has to prove that there was a conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to a government computer. Again, it's not against the law to hack a password, but it is to hack a password and then use it to gain access. This requires the government to prove that when Assange agreed to the conspiracy, he had the same mental state necessary to be found guilty of committing that criminal object of the conspiracy. For this reason, conspiracy is often called a crime of two intents. The government not only has to prove that Assange agreed to conspire, and that an act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by one of the conspirators, but also that Assange had the same intent necessary to convict him of actually gaining unauthorized access to a government computer. To be convicted of conspiring to rob a bank, you have to have really intended to rob the bank. But it's possible that Assange was just playing along with Manning, or yessing her, or never agreed to participate at all. That’s for a jury for decide.

Dangerous Detention: Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison

Dangerous Detention: Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison -
OCTOBER 3, 2019

Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

Much ink has been spilt in textbooks describing situations where autocratic states can behave badly. They abuse rights; they ignore international law and they ride roughshod over conventions. Liberal democracies may boast that they follow matters to the letter of the law, and make sure that citizens are given their fair and just cause in putting forth their cases. The practice suggests all too glaringly that the opposite is true.

The English legal tradition, with its historically brutal punishments, adoration of the fetish known as the rule of law, and a particular tendency towards a miscarriage of justice, has found a rich target in Julian Assange. Behind the stiffness of procedure and the propriety of convention, cruelties are being justified with grinding regularity.

On September 22, Assange would have been released from HMP Belmarsh, a maximum security centre whose reputation betrays much in the way the authorities wish to handle the publisher. The 50-week jail term imposed for skipping bail was a mild matter relative to others serving life sentences in the prison, but a statement had to be made both to those wishing to emulate Assange and Britain’s cousins across the Atlantic. But that term of imprisonment was never meant to be genuinely observed in the scheme of things; its termination merely being a point in a broader scheme of ongoing detention. It was a mere hiccup in a conversation which involves US power. The Washington security establishment is salivating for its quarry, and Britain is playing minder.

This means keeping him in indefinite detention, or at least till US authorities make their case, however unconvincing. At the Westminster Magistrates court hearing on September 13, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser was short and sharp. “You have been produced today because your sentence of imprisonment is about to come to an end. When that happens your remand status changes from serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.”

The District Judge explained how she had given Assange’s lawyer “an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so, perhaps not surprising in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings.” In that explanation, a cosmos of meaning can be discerned. Any application for bail would have been futile in any case, given that the judge had made up her mind. “In my view I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again.”

The judge was also being more than a touch disingenuous. The hearing could not, in any genuine way, be described as a bail hearing, despite being represented as such. It was, in fact, a technical hearing, meaning that the magistrate had effectively refused bail even before a formal request by the defence. Such tendencies towards premature adjudication do not do the legal profession proud.

The curious reference to “these proceedings” suggested a continuum of prosecution against Assange conflating both Swedish and US attempts to extradite him. His punishment for skipping bail was not connected to the current US case, at least directly, but avoiding the extradition to Sweden in an attempt to question him over allegations of sexual assault.

To the judicial officer, it was all the same picture of reason, the same cheek shown in avoiding the inevitable. Never mind that Assange exercised his rights to asylum, that the reason he fled to the Ecuadorean embassy in 2012 was based on a genuine, and now proven fear, that he could be extradited to the United States to face charges with a cumulative prison time of 175 years. Best bang him up in the cells as a warmer for the US effort, which is set to gather steam for a February extradition hearing.

While Britain continues its immolating ritual in how it leaves the European Union, there are murmurings of protest keeping the matter of Assange’s fate alive. On Saturday, a modest protest took place outside Belmarsh, sporting the staple banners: “Don’t shoot the messenger”; “Free, free Julian Assange”; “Hands off Assange”.

Labour MP Chris Williamson was on hand to address those gathered. “Here we have a situation where someone who we should be celebrating is facing solitary confinement, which is tantamount to torture taking place on British soil. This cannot be allowed to stand.”

Williamson’s rationale is based on a traditional suspicion of the overreach of US power, and not a view shared by the mainstream plodders in British politics. “We have a moral duty to fight for Julian Assange, whose only crime is to expose war crimes by the US and the abuse of state powers.”

Williamson has also made the observation that his country has become rather slapdash with its application of legal principle, despite taking some historical pride in defending human rights. “Britain is increasingly behaving like a tin-pot dictatorship in its dealing with him.” While Assange suffers, British politicians, notably those in Camp Brexit, see only one dictatorship: the EU. Their idea of the Sceptred Isle remains pure.

There are accounts about Assange’s failing health that jab and trigger the occasional splash of publicity. Assange’s father, John Shipton, has described how, during a visit in August, his son looked “a bit shaky, and is suffering from anxiety. He has lost a lot of weight. It is very distressing, and the intensity of his treatment has increased over the past year.”

The UN Special Rapporteur, Nils Melzer, has also issued stirring assessments of Assange’s detention, with its compounding cruelties. “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political prosecution, I have never seen a group of democratic states gang up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law. The collective punishment of Julian Assange must end here and now.” Sadly, and depressingly for publishers, the process continues, wearingly and destructively.Join the debate on Facebook
More articles by:


Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:

Full Interview of Julian Assange - Full interview of Afshin Rattansi and Julian Assange

Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2017.CreditCreditFrank Augstein/Associated Press

They’re Murdering My Son: Father of Julian Assange Tells of Pain and Anguish
John Shipton, the father of imprisoned whistleblower Julian Assange, says that if his son is extradited to the US,

“They will murder Julian one way or the other.”

September 25th, 2019 by Finian Cunningham

Julian Assange’s father, John Shipton, gave an interview to Strategic Culture Foundation over the weekend. After arriving from his home country of Australia, Shipton is visiting several European states, including Russia, to bring public attention to the persecution of Julian Assange by British authorities over his role as a publisher and author.
First though an introduction to the Assange case. Few media figures can be attributed to transforming international politics and the global media landscape. Arguably, Julian Assange, author, publisher, and founder of the Wikileaks whistleblower website (2006), is in the top tier of world-changing individuals over the past decade.

The Australian-born Assange has previously been awarded accolades and respect for his truth-telling journalism which exposed massive crimes, corruption and nefarious intrigues by the US government and its Western allies.
One of the most shocking exposés by Wikileaks was the video ‘Collateral Murder’ (2010) which showed mass, indiscriminate deadly shootings by US troops in Iraq. Similar war crimes by American troops in Afghanistan were also revealed by Wikileaks. The so-called US and NATO “war on terror” was exposed as a fraud and gargantuan crime.
Assange worked with American whistleblowers Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, the latter revealing the illegal systematic global surveillance by US spy agencies against ordinary citizens and political leaders around the world in flagrant violation of human rights and Washington’s much-vaunted claims of upholding civil liberties and international law.
The powers-that-be have gone after these truth-tellers with a vengeance for daring to expose their hypocrisy and vile record. Snowden is in exile in Russia unable to return to the US out of fear of imprisonment for “treason”. Manning is currently being detained indefinitely in the US because she refuses to testify against Assange. Julian Assange’s ground-breaking journalism exposing government crimes did so in a way that so many established Western news media outlets failed to do out of cowardly deference to the powers-that-be. Such so-called “independent” media are now facilitating the persecution of Assange by smearing his reputation and ignoring his plight in prison. He has been smeared, among other slanders, as a “Kremlin agent” and a “cyber terrorist”.
After almost seven years (2012-2019) confined in the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he sought political asylum to avoid arbitrary arrest by British authorities over trumped-up sex assault claims (since dropped), Assange was illegally arrested in April this year by UK police storming the Ecuadorian embassy. He has since been detained in maximum security Belmarsh prison where he is held under conditions of solitary confinement. He is being detained indefinitely while the US prepares a request to British authorities to extradite him. If he is extradited to the US, Assange will face charges under the Espionage Act which could result in 175 years in jail.
Belmarsh prison in London is a Special Category A jail (the most severe of four grades of detention centers in the British penal system). It has been used previously to detain mass murderers and the most dangerous convicted terrorists. Julian Assange’s ongoing incarceration there under lockdown is preposterous. It is an outrage, and yet Western media show little or no concern to report on this gross violation of due process and human rights law.
Earlier this month, on September 13, Assange was ordered by a British judge to be detained further even though he was due to be released this week on September 22, after having served out his sentence over a minor bail infringement that occurred back in 2012 when he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in London. That bail infringement is null and void since the original sex-assault claim in Sweden has been dropped due to lack of evidence against Assange.

Evidently, his detention is being used by the British government (no doubt at the behest of Washington) in order to destroy his health and very being. At age 48, his physical and mental condition are deteriorating by the day under the extreme conditions which amount to torture, as the UN special rapporteur Nils Melzer noted after visiting the prisoner back in May this year. The UN report called for Assange’s immediate release.
The following is an interview conducted with Assange’s father, John Shipton. He is currently on a tour of European countries to highlight the gross miscarriage of justice against his son. Shipton is visiting Britain, Ireland, Austria, Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden to campaign for Julian’s immediate release. He is also traveling to Russia.
In contrast to Western media indifference, John Shipton says he has encountered great public support for Julian, demanding his freedom. Among his supporters are prominent public figures, award-winning journalist John Pilger, renowned thinker and writer Noam Chomsky, Pink Floyd singer-songwriter Roger Waters and the courageous actress Pamela Anderson.
The Interview
Strategic Culture (SC)
Can you describe the current prison conditions for Julian and his state of health?
John Shipton (JS): Julian has lost 15 kilos in weight, is held in Belmarsh Maximum Security Prison Hospital 22 hours per day in solitary confinement. Nils Melzer, United Nation’s special rapporteur on torture, visited in company with two people expert in recognising the effects of torture. Nil’s report stated Julian showed the effects of toture physically and mentally. Since Nil’s visit in May 2019, Julian continues to loseweight, now totalling 15 kilos. Nils and company describe Julian’s deeply distressing condition in firm language, UN report linked.

SC: It is reported that you are being restricted from contact with your son in prison despite you having travelled from Sydney, Australia, to visit him, Is that correct?

JS: Julian can receive two, too-hour social visits per month. My visit was double-booked with another thus cancelled. A week later, in company with Ai Wei Wei, we visited Julian. Sitting in the prisoners’ meeting room for 46 minutes, upon complaining we were told Julian could not be found. Couple of minutes later, Julian was brought in.
SC: Is Julian being restricted from contact with his lawyers in order to prepare his defense against the pending extradition case from Britain to the US?
JS: Yes, severely. Sentences to maximum security as a Grade B prisoner in solitary confinement, without access to computer or library. I gather the prison library has no books on criminal law.
SC: The latest development this month on September 13 saw a British judge rule that Julian’s detention in London’s max security Belmarsh Prison is to be expended indefinitely despite him being due to be released on September 22, after serving his time for a bail infringement back in 2012. What, in your view, is objectionable about the latest ruling by the British Judge?#
JS: The judge, Vanessa Baraitser. Made her own application for Julian’s bail which, with bottomless ignominy, she promptly refused. Baraitser in summing up her judgement used the phrase. “likely yo abscond”. Julian has partaken of legal conventions of asylum, and to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, reviewed and supported by 32 states in the American Organisation of States, and he has ceaselessly offered Sweedish preosecutiors ipportunity to interview him or travel to Sweden if guarantees of no onward extradition to the United States. Stephania Maurizi’s Freedom of Information requests of United Kingdom’s Crown Prosecuting Service and Sweedish Crown Prosecuting Authority had revealed irregular anti-procedural state cooperation keeping Julian in Ecuador’s London Embassy. Mini Adolf Eichmanns all of them are.
Sweedish prosecuting authority jas had four prosecutors, two interviews, one in Sweden 2010 and 2017 in Ecuador’s London embassy, during nine years under regulations stating that cases must be progressed. To land a man on the moon took eight years!

This is prosecutorial and judicial insouciant malice towards Julian!
SC: What are your concerns about what could happen if your son is extradited to the US where he is facing charges of violating the Espionage Act?
JS: They will murder Julian one way or the other.
SC: What do you say to politicians and media figures, like Meghan McCain, the daughter of the late US senator John McCain, who denounce Julian as a “cyber terrorist”?
JS: US Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, moron and crook or if you prefer, crook and moron, if memory serves, fist uttered this phrase purportedly bringing Julian under the Patriot Act as a terrorist, thereby able to be extra-judicially murdered, Floundering morons repeat meaningless phrases echoing other bubble-head nonsense. Everyone of those morons are horrified by and terrified by truth and facts which everyone all can see and read on Wikileaks.
SC: Are you proud of your son’s work as a publisher and whistleblower? What do you see as his main achievement from his publishing work?
JS: The achievements are many. In diplomatic cables we can read of how the geopolitical world is composed and disposed of people therein. We can understand what Uncle Sam wants and how the US state gets what it wants. Many millions of people, communities and states benefit from Wikileaks, some greatly. Example, Chagos Islands at the International Court of Justice. Iraq War and Afgan files exposing war crimes. Vault 7 exposing CIA cyber illegalities and crimes. The ‘Collateral Murder’ video’s revelation of US war crimes in Iraq. The list of revelations and beneficiaries is long and deep. Julian Assange and Wikileaks are a necessity.
War crimes revealed, sordid practices, blackmail and bribery, Seven countries destroyed, millions dead, rivers of blood and millions displaced. Yet only Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, both innocent 0f giving hurt and crime, rot in jail
SC: Is Julian’s treatment by British and US authorities a grave warning to all citizens about the danger to their right to freedom of expression and independent media?
JS: Yes, a grim warning. Shut up or be crushed. What free press? English-speaking mass media is homogenous in its deceptions, prevarication and banal lies. Popular internet search engines deflect inquiry into corporate cronies. Facebook corporation is greed incarnate. All these entities can be simply regulated. Nation states have powers, however, do nothing but salivate over access to data we generate ... our data.
For Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are icons of oppressive state vilense towards revelation of astonishing corruption and staggering criminality.
Many gifted, brave writers, commentators and film-makers continue a furious fight in alternative media and blogs, We give our gratitude and salute to such men and women, for they all know, intimately, there is no monster colder than the US state and its allies.
SC: Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison and the government in Canberra have refused to make appeals for Julian’s release despite him being an Australian citizen. How do you view the Australian government’s lack of response to the case? Why are they apparently derelict? For example, Premier Morrison is visiting US President Donald Trump this week, but he is reportedly schedules to not raise the Assange case or to request his release. Why is Morrison acting with such indifference, and deference to the US?
JS: The Australian Government is complicit. More than complicit as silence indicated agreed involvement. Notable exception are ex-Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. With concordance of ex-prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, raising Julian with Jeremy Hunt, the former United Kingdom Foreign Minister and Mike Pompeo, the cent United States Secretary of State.
SC: Are you hopeful that Julian will be released in the near future? How important have public supporters like journalist John Pilger, Pink Floyd singer-song-writer Roger Waters and actress Pamela Anderson, as well as ordinary members of the public, been to Julian’s spirits?
JS: To Julian’ spirits, friends and supporters are alpha to omega of life.

For those interested in contacting John Shipton for further media interviews or details about Julian Assange’s case,


Linda Givetash
Linda Givetash is a reporter based in London. She previously worked for The Canadian Press in Vancouver and Nation Media in Uganda. 

After pleading guilty to "hacking", Assange escaped prison on the condition he did not reoffend

Julian Assange to stay in prison over absconding fears
13 September 2019
Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange is to remain in prison when his jail term ends because of his "history of absconding", a judge has ruled.
He was due to be released on 22 September after serving his sentence for breaching bail conditions.
But Westminster Magistrates' Court heard there were "substantial grounds" for believing he would abscond again.
The Australian, 48, is fighting extradition to the US over allegations of leaking government secrets.
He will face a full extradition hearing next year, starting on 25 February, after an extradition request was signed by the then home secretary Sajid Javid in June.
Assange received a 50-week sentence in Belmarsh Prison, south-east London, after being found guilty of breaching the Bail Act in April.
He was arrested at the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he took refuge in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault allegations - which he has denied.
District judge Vanessa Baraitser on Friday told Assange, who appeared by video-link: "You have been produced today because your sentence of imprisonment is about to come to an end.
"When that happens your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition."
She said that his lawyer had declined to make an application for bail on his behalf, adding "perhaps not surprisingly in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings".
"In my view I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again."
He faces 18 charges in the US, including computer misuse and the unauthorised disclosure of national defence information.
He is accused of working with former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in "unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defence", according to the US Justice Department.
He spent seven years inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London before being handed over to British authorities by Ecuador in April.
In May, Swedish prosecutors reopened their investigation into an allegation of rape against Assange.

Julian Assange spent almost seven years inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London

Julian Assange Extradition Requests: What Happens Next?
By Aaron Walawalkar
News and Digital Editor
28th May 2019

WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange is facing possible extradition to the United States, where he could spend decades behind bars, after being charged with violating the Espionage Act.
He also faces the possibility of being extradited to Sweden, after an investigation into an allegation of rape made against him was reopened earlier this month, although no arrest warrant has been issued yet.

The 47-year-old Australian journalist is currently serving a 50-week jail sentence atBelmarsh prison in London.

He was convicted last month of breaching bail conditions for claiming political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault and rape.
He remained there for nearly seven years, under the 24-hour surveillance of Metropolitan Police officers hoping to arrest him, in what a panel of UN human rights experts deemed to constitute “arbitrary detention”.
With Mr Assange’s future looking uncertain and complicated, RightsInfo spoke to a human rights barrister who specialises in extradition cases to understand what could happen next.

What Is Julian Assange Accused Of?

Last week, the US Department of Justice revealed its latest indictment against Mr Assange, which includes 17 counts of espionage:

one count of conspiracy to receive national defence information
seven counts of obtaining national defence information
nine counts of disclosing national defence information

He also faces an additional charge of conspiracy to commit computer misuse.

Mr Assange co-founded Wikileaks in 2006 and since then it has published millions of confidential governmental files and documents – including the famous “Collateral Murder” video.
With the indictment, the ‘leader of the free world’ dismisses the First Amendment – hailed as a model of press freedom around the world – and launches a blatant extraterritorial assault outside its borders.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, Editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks
“Assange’s actions risked serious harm to United States national security to the benefit of our adversaries,” the US Justice Department said in a statement unveiling an 18-count indictment.

It goes on to accuse Mr Assange of risking harm to “local Afghans and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes” by allegedly publishing their unredacted names.
Responding, WikiLeaks’ editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said: “This is the evil of lawlessness in its purest form.

“With the indictment, the ‘leader of the free world’ dismisses the First Amendment – hailed as a model of press freedom around the world – and launches a blatant extraterritorial assault outside its borders, attacking basic principles of democracy in Europe and the rest of the world.”

Earlier this month, Swedish prosecutors also re-opened an investigation into rape and sexual assault allegations made against Mr Assange in 2010 while on a visit to the country that summer.

Four allegations had been made against him by two women. However, the time limit for bringing charges in relation to three of the allegations has expired with the third allegation, of rape, also due to expire in 2020.

Assange was released on conditional bail from Wandsworth prison in December 2010, while fighting Sweden’s European Arrest Warrant (EAW).

However he lost his final legal challenge at the Supreme Court in 2012.

Mr Assange was subsequently required to surrender to Belgravia Police Station but failed to do so – a separate criminal offence for which he is currently serving 50-weeks in prison – instead seeking refuge in the Ecuador Embassy for nearly seven years.

Swedish prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in May 2017, feeling they could not progress the case while Assange remained in the Embassy.

But, following his eviction and arrest last month, the Swedish Prosecution Authority announced it would reopen the investigation.

Timeline: The Saga So Far

Julian Assange Timeline

What Next?

Human rights barrister Dan Sternberg, a specialist in extradition at Temple Garden Chambers, told RightsInfo that Mr Assange might look to the Human Rights Convention (HRC) to fight his extradition requests.
“The main issue that is novel is the extent to which Article 10 [of the HRC] can be engaged in extradition proceedings,” he said.

This article protects the right to freedom of speech from arbitrary government interference.
However this right is qualified and public bodies can take proportionate actions to restrict it if they can show it is necessary to protect national security, among other reasons.
[Julian Assange] may argue that he will be kept in a super max prison which he would say does not meet international standards.

Dan Sternberg,is a  Specialist in Extradition Barrister at Temple Garden Chambers

“I understand his defence may be that he was only pursuing journalistic activities and that the US’ request is a disproportionate interference in that,” Mr Sternberg said.
“That is an interesting point as there is no real precedent.”
Mr Sternberg added that it is possible Mr Assange might also oppose the US’ extradition request under Article 3 of the HRC – our right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
“He may argue that he will be kept in a super max prison which he would say does not meet international standards” Mr Sternberg said.
“It will really depend on the evidence he can gather [indicating] that he may be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment.”

Should Sweden request Mr Assange’s extradition, Mr Sternberg said that there are fewer human rights grounds that can be could relied on.
“The issue in relation to Article 10 would not be available there,” Mr Sternberg said, given the Swedish cases concern sexual offences and not the disclosure of information.
“There has been recent precedent on this issue and the High Court has upheld [Swedish prisons] and found they are not in breach of Article 3.”

He added: “The human rights issues will be less powerful for him and it will be down to more technical points.”

The decision of which extradition request to prioritise sits with Home Secretary Sajid Javid, according to the 2003 Extradition Act.

Among the factors the Home Secretary must consider is the relative seriousness of the offences Mr Assange is accused of, the location in which they took place, and the date each warrant was issued.

Mr Sternberg said: “At the moment there isn’t a live Swedish EAW. But, if there were one, the US case might well take priority as the US will argue it involves damage to national security.”
In her role as former Home Secretary, Theresa May blocked the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the United States on human rights grounds in 2012 after he hacked into US government computers.

Mr McKinnon, who was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, claimed he was looking for evidence of UFOs.

The Mechanics of Deception: Wag the Dog
Black Pilled
Get my book "Day of the Rope" while you still can! You may also support BlackPilled here (they demonetize most my videos): SUBSCRIBESTAR: PATREON: OTHER:

Black Pilled
Get my book "Day of the Rope" while you still can! You may also support BlackPilled here (they demonetize most my videos): SUBSCRIBESTAR: PATREON: OTHER:

I’ve heard it repeated time and time again, that in order for the elites to do something to the unsuspecting slave class, they must tell us first. I’ve heard many people say this, but I’ve never heard anyone explain where this idea comes from. If you really think about it, the idea is an ancient one. Think about the many fables in which a man makes a deal with the devil, only to discover later that they were so wrapped up in the gift that he was bestowing on them that they didn’t pay close enough attention to the fine print of the contract.You see, the devil, despite his power and his seductive nature, it seems that even he must fully inform his prey of the consequences of accepting his gift before feasting on their souls.
So maybe this is the origin behind the idea that the ruling class must fully inform their victims before they feast. Perhaps as part of some twisted moral code, they feel this alleviates them of any wrongdoing. This is the twisted logic that justifies their predatory existence.
While I’m not sure if this indeed is the modus operandi of the evil that has managed to pool and congeal at the top of the power hierarchy, if it is, what then is the fine print? Where do they telegraph the consequences of allowing them to rule us? Where is the obscure legal language that describes in detail exactly how they will ruin us?
Some have suggested that the ruling class utilizes the same methods to communicate these hidden clauses in the social contract the same way they communicate all things they wish the public to know without really thinking about. They use Holly wood. Probably because there are so many instances that when examined closely it does appear as if that is precisely what is happening. The age old argument of art imitating life or life imitating art gets pushed aside when art seems to depict future events with such stunning detail and accuracy, that it seems that the only way this could occur is if the artists themselves had prior knowledge of what was to come or even instrumental in their planning and execution.
One example of this is the film “Wag the Dog” is a film you could say that seems to be reality so cloaked heavily in false satire and sarcasm that it’s almost as if the ruling class isn’t just telegraphing to the people what it is they do intend to do, but that if indeed that is what this film is an example of, they are rubbing it in our faces.
Wag the Dog was released in 1997, this is important to know because this is well before 9/11 happened and pre-dates any popular understanding that there was a “deep state” by decades. This is also a time before the internet was widely available to the public and most everyone got their news from networks owned by billionaires that sometimes act as quasi government agencies like CNN.
Wag the Dog was produced and directed by Barry Levinson, who just so happens to party in the Hamptons with Bill Clinton. This is a significant point that we will come back to later not just because it shows his deep ties to the ruling class but because this coziness that Hollywood producers have with the ruling class, something Levinson is deeply aware of, is reflected in the film he produced and directed.
The film begins by laughing in the audience’s face. You see, the title itself is part of this obscured legal language of the ruling class. “Wag the Dog” on it’s face just seems like an entertaining word play, it’s not immediately apparent that there is any deeper meaning to it. Most of the public will see these words and just think it’s a humorous but meaningless phrase. And so the film in its first few moments tells you exactly what it means knowing full well by doing so it’s not giving up any secrets to the sedated audience, it’s simply giving them what they crave. Amusement.
“Why does a dog wag its tail?” The film asks with a pleasant unassuming serif font with patriotic yet folksy music playing in the background.
“Because the dog is smarter than it’s tail,” the answer comes, “if the tail were smarter, it would wag the dog.”
They are telling you just in the first few seconds of this film that the way that the world works is that the intelligent manipulate the unintelligent. That is the meaning of the title, but it goes beyond that. Since the title is wag the dog, not wag the tail, they are also saying that what you perceive as being the intelligent force behind events is the complete opposite of reality and they are smugly telling you this literally in black and white before they tell you how they do it.
If this film is telegraphing, it’s doing it plain as day as those behind it laugh in the face of the audience who bought the tickets.
The film now begins with a political ad in a presidential campaign. The ad is cheesy and we gather from the equally cheesy slogan “Don’t change horses in mid stream” that it is a reelection campaign. The ad is telling the american public, don’t upset the status quo, just go with the president you have because it’s the best you can do and you wouldn’t want to upset things.
We now go to the white house that approved this ad, it’s after hours and in the basement in a secret room. Robert De Niro is playing a crisis manager. It seems that the election is only days away and the administration has discovered that news that the president had sex with a young girl in the oval office is about to break. The president is in China on some sort of diplomatic trip and a team has been assembled to deal with this crisis before the news breaks.
Robert De Niro tells the president’s people to delay the president in china and to tell the press that he is sick. He also tells them to begin spreading disinfo about a fictional B3 bomber to create a fog around the President’s trip to china and to get the press talking about something unrelated to the scandal before it breaks. He also tells the administration to start rumors about a crisis brewing somewhere that he has yet to work out the details on, knowing full well the press will predictably parrot any talking points they put out directly or through deception.
On the plane to LA to see a Hollywood producer to help produce a crisis that will distract the American people from the scandal in the oval office, De Niro explains they can make a fake war because the american people will believe whatever they see on TV. He talks about how nobody questioned the gulf war, they just went along with whatever they were told. Now, this is pretty stunning because this film was made before it was widely known that much of the gulf war was a farce. That this performance right here of a young woman who claimed to have witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and killing them was actually a manufactured story written by a PR firm with lines delivered by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to help lie the american people into a war. Also before the public knew of all the fake footage that CNN used during the war as war correspondents pretended to be under attack. You and I know this now, but when wag the dog was released the idea that the gulf war was the product of fiction was an extremely fringe idea. The audience watching was giggling at the idea that it was all just a play put on for the public and thinking how clever the filmmakers were this is imaginative premise when it reality, they were rubbing it in your face. The joke was on you.
De Niro then goes to LA to see a Hollywood producer played by Dustin Hoffman. In convincing Dustin Hoffman Robert De Niro demonstrates the control he has over the press office by making a call and dictating what the press secretary should say while he is live at the podium. Again, this film was made in 1997, well before any kind of mini bluetooth earpieces were available and well before any accusations that debate participants might be using some kind of earpiece device. At the time, this technology was science fiction, or at least it was for the general public.
De Niro tells Dustin Hoffman that they are going to fake a war in Albania. They chose Albania because Americans are poorly educated by government schools and most couldn’t find Alabama on a map let alone Albania so they will just think what the people on TV tell them to think.

Right away the start talking about how to market the war and how to make money on it at the same time. They bring up the yellow ribbon campaign from the gulf war and say that it was all a manufacture movement that made them a lot of money selling overpriced yellow ribbons, I’m not aware of anyone researching this but I would not by shocked if there was a kernel of truth in this line in the movie that likely generated a lot of laughter in the theater as the audience in 1997 once again giggled at how preposterous it was that something like that would or even could be faked. Nobody is laughing now.
They also decide they need a reason for the war. They know Americans don’t ask too many questions so it doesn’t have to be too elaborate, so in this movie that was made well before we were invading Iraq looking for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, they decide to lie and claim that Albania has, weapons of mass destruction. They hate us for our freedom and they are going to destroy the “great satan” that is the United States. Sound familiar?
The newly assembled team also starts working on a song they can saturate with airways with once the manufactured war begins. Wars need theme songs that will bring the public together after all, war as they put it in the film, is show business. This also sounds familiar
The first thing the team decides they need is some footage they can leak to the press. Fake footage that will pull at the heart strings of Americans. Again, this was made in 1997, decades before the public became aware of the fake footage of the Hollywood promoted white helmets and the fake Syrian gas footage. In 1997, this was all just a joke. They show how easily Hollywood puts together fake footage of a war torn Albania, with a young village woman holding a kitten. They argue about what cat they should use, or maybe they will use a dog, its all just a joke. It’s also a joke when Robert De Niro tells the actress who is playing the Albanian woman that if she tells anyone she was involved in the production, they will kill her.
The press obediently plays the fake footage to the american people, as we now know they have done repeatedly in the past so many times we may never know the extent of their deception or the lives that were needless lost because of their lies. But that’s ok because in 1997, it was all just a joke.
After pulling off the deception we are introduced to an idea that was largely a far-fetched notion in 1997, we are introduced to the deep state. The CIA and the NSA knows there is no war in Albania and they apprehend Robert De Niro and ask them to explain themselves. Once again we get more truth disguised as humor that the audience will laugh off and never take seriously because to believe what is being discussed would destroy the mythical view they have of their country. Robert De Niro explains to the deep state representative that they need this fake war just as much as the president does. He tells them that if the american people feel safe and secure that the deep state will get budget cuts, he tells them that they have to put the scare into the american people so that they keep giving money to the deep state. But don’t worry, this is all just a joke…. …right?
The conspirators hit a bump in the road when the senator running against the president catches wind of the war being fake and goes on television and declares that the fighting has stopped and that the war is over. The election is still a few days away so they need to stretch it out longer. They decide a good way to do this is by telling the american public that a soldier was left behind and is caught behind enemy lines. They want to market this with a campaign so they choose a soldier with the name of Shuman, they then fake a song called good old shoe that the plant in the national archives, a deep state honeypot agent then plants the idea that an old song called good old shoe to a man in the press that then runs with it, and they AstroTurf a campaign throwing old shoes into trees.

The entire country is praying for Shuman to be returned home safely.
Now I want to pause for a moment and draw your attention to this shot in the movie. This is Robert De Niro, and Dustin Hoffman walking out of the gates at the white house. That means that the white house at the bare minimum read and approved the script and gave them access to the grounds to shoot this. The rest of the white house footage can easily be shot on a set somewhere in Hollywood, but this shot had to be approved by the white house. Just something to keep in mind.
So now that the country is waiting for this Shuman to be returned, they go to pick him up only to discover that through some mix up the soldier they have built the campaign around is a psychotic prisoner and a rapist. At this point the film takes a turn into the absurd. It almost seems as if the filmmakers, well aware of how much truth they have revealed, need to slap on a few more coats of satire for the sake of plausible deniability. This is also important because up until this point in the film the audience can feel comfortable knowing that while the government is being portrayed as being corrupt to the point of being morally bankrupt, nobody has been physically hurt yet as a result. That’s all about to change and while many humans have trouble looking down the road at the horrors and mass casualties that corruption can lead to, its not nearly as apparent as the danger of immediate physical injury and death. Even the lowest of IQ viewer will understand that death and murder is bad so in order for the filmmakers to proceed with their story they are forced to ratchet of the absurdity of the film so that is disconnects people further from reality. They are intentionally lowering the audience’s suspension of disbelief because they don’t want to audience to really believe what they are seeing, because just like everything else in the movie, it’s all just a joke.
Shuman is taking anti psychotics and is clearly in no condition to be presented to the american people as a hero. He has a fit and that mixed with bad weather causes them to get into a plane crash. All the important people survive without a scratch.That’s the ridiculous part. The truth here is that the pilots have died and the group doesn’t care at all, it’s not even mentioned. All that matters to them is pulling off the deception no matter what the human cost. This is further hammered in when they hitch a ride to a payphone and Shuman decides to rape a farmer’s daughter. The farmer kills Shuman and the important people feel nothing for the girl that was raped or for the soldier that was a pawn in their game, it’s all about how these events have affected the deception.
They decide that this is actually a good thing, given the condition of Shuman and they put on a big show with his casket being returned home complete with a dog they have trained to follow the casket. The deception has finally been played out to its conclusion and the president it sure to win reelection now as the sheep in america just eat up the propaganda they are being spoon fed, there bellies are full and are they ever entertained.
At this climax the Dustin Hoffman, the Hollywood producer that helped with the deception decides he wants to take credit for the work and this is where we learn that even his live is expendable when it comes to maintaining the deception. The deception must be protected at all costs because that is all that separates the ruling class from the slave class. They are smarter. They are the tail that wags the dog, and because knowledge is power it must be kept from the public at all costs. So we see here both a warning to other story tellers in the ruling class that if you fail to go along with the deception that no matter how instrumental you might think you are to the plan you are expendable, but also a submission stance by the producer and director of this film who likely sees himself in this character. He is acknowledging that despite the role he may have played in revealing all of these obscured truths, he knows how to protect the deception and knows what will happen if he fails.
So is this the ruling class telegraphing to the public what they intended to do and what they have been doing for generations, or just a crazy coincidence? It’s hard to watch this film and not think that it’s not at least somewhat possible that this was the ruling class giving the public a peek behind the curtain. Even Saddam Hussein’s information minister mentioned the film “Wag the Dog” by name during the during the Iraq invasion. Either way there is one thing for sure. The truths in this film can no longer be experienced as silly punchlines. They hit to close to the mark an illicit an entirely different emotion. An emotion 180 out of phase with the emotion that audiences in 1997 experienced. That emotion, is rage.

Julian Assange spoke to the media and his supporters from the Ecuadorean embassy in August 2012

Anna Ardin (the main official Swedish complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. Anna Ardin  has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba. From Oslo, Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed here. Note that Ardin was deported from Cuba for subversive activities. In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter. Wikipedia quotes Hebe de Bonafini, president of the Argentine Madres de Plaza de Mayo as saying that “the so-called Ladies in White defend the terrorism of the United States.”
However we do not have to accept the single-bullet theory. Life is more complicated than that. In addition to her anti-Castro, pro-CIA streak, Anna Ardin apparently indulges in her favorite sport of male-bashing. A Swedish forum reports that she is an expert on sexual harassment and the male “master suppression techniques”. Once, as she was lecturing, a male student in the audience looked at his notes instead of staring at her. Anna Ardin reported him for sexual harassment because he discriminated against her for being a woman and because she claimed he made use of the male “master suppression technique” in trying to make her feel invisible. As soon as the student learned about her complaint, he contacted her to apologize and explain himself. Anna Ardin’s response was to once again report him for sexual harassment, again because he was using the “master suppression technique”, this time to belittle her feelings.
Ardin is apparently involved with a “Christian” Social-Democrat group. The Swedish church has a precious few male priests: what was once the struggle for female equality has ended up with men being effectively removed from service. Nowadays very few Swedish male-female couples marry in the church, or get married at all; most Swedish gay couples, however, are proud to become “man and wife” in the church. This is all good news for wealthy Swedes: deserted churches sell their properties (once enjoyed by the community) to be fenced off by the nouveau riche created by the latest privatization wave. So much for Swedish social democracy!
The second accuser, Sofia Wilen, 26, is Anna’ friend. Here is a video of an Assange press conference where one can see the girls together. Those present at the conference marveled at her groupie-like behavior. Though rock stars are used to girls dying to have sex with them, it is much less common in the harsh field of political journalism. Sofia worked hard to bed Assange, according to her own confession; she was also the first to complain to police. She is little known and her motives are vague. Why might a young woman (who shares her life with American artist Seth Benson) pursue such a sordid political adventure?//

Note to self: If you go after a fly, sooner or later, you will land on a pile of shit
(This video has been removed by YouTube from orders of the Ruling Elite)

Unequal Justice: Julian Assange is an Enemy in Trump’s War on the First Amendment

Unless and until Assange’s prosecution is dismissed, no publication will be safe from the Administration’s vengeance and overreach.
by Bill Blum   May 28, 2019

Bill Blum is a Los Angeles lawyer and a former state of California administrative law judge.

Prosecution of a news entity for publishing leaked information is something new.
The Department of Justice no doubt will contend that WikiLeaks is not a legitimate news organization. 
Trump has now flipped from professing his “love” for WikiLeaks during the campaign to targeting Assange as part of the enemy.

The prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act represents a dangerous turn in President Donald Trump’s war on the First Amendment. Whether you love Assange or loathe him, it is vital to understand the eighteen-count indictment filed against him on May 23 in the context of that wider conflict. In a very real sense, we are all defendants in the case against Assange.
The new charges allege that Assange collaborated with former Army Intelligence Officer Chelsea Manning from 2009 to 2011 to obtain and publish national defense information about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. items supplied by Manning included more than 250,000 classified State Department cables as well as several CIA-interrogation videos. Manning also leaked the now-widely viewed video of a 2007 attack staged by U.S. military Apache helicopters in Baghdad that killed two Reuters employees and a dozen other people.
The new charges supersede an earlier one-count indictment that was filed secretly under seal in March 2018 and cited Assange for conspiring with Manning to decode a Defense Department computer password. Assange is currently in a London jail, serving a fifty-week sentence for jumping bail in 2012 while facing extradition to Sweden on rape allegations. He now faces extradition to the United States as well.
That would be a horrific outcome, not only for Assange personally, but for anyone concerned with freedom of the press.
Although the prosecution of government leakers like Manning has become more common in recent decades, prosecution of a news entity for publishing leaked information is something new. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a lengthy 2017 analysis:
“While courts have held that the Espionage Act and other relevant statutes allow for convictions for leaks to the press, the government has never prosecuted a traditional news organization for its receipt [and publication] of classified or other protected information.”
Indeed, the prosecution of Assange for alleged violations of the Espionage Act reopens a threat to press freedom that hasn’t been seen in decades.

In the landmark “Pentagon Papers” case (New York Times Company v. United States), the Supreme Court quashed the Nixon Administration’s effort to enjoin the Times and The Washington Post from publishing materials disclosed to them by former military analyst Daniel Ellsberg. By a vote of 6-3, the court held that the attempt to place “prior restraints” on the two newspapers ran afoul of the First Amendment.
Similarly, in October 1979, a federal appeals court dismissed a complaint brought against The Progressivemagazine on behalf of the Department of Energy to prevent publication of a feature story entitled, “The H-Bomb Secret.” The Progressive published the H-bomb article the following month. (Full disclosure: My review of G. William Domhoff’s book, The Powers that Be: Processes of Ruling Class Domination in America, appeared in the same issue.)
The Department of Justice, now run by Attorney General William Barr, no doubt will contend that WikiLeaks is not a legitimate news organization deserving of Constitutional protections. But in fact, Assange and WikiLeaks have been honored over the years with several international journalism awards.

In any event, it is unlikely that the Department of Justice will be able to draw a principled distinction between publishers that merit First Amendment safeguards and those who do not.

Notably, the Obama Administration declined to indict Assange because of what was then described as the “New York Times problem”—that if Assange were charged, the Times, the Post and the Guardian, among others, would also have to be prosecuted for publishing files leaked by Manning.

The Trump Administration now appears ready to evade and, if possible, eradicate the “New York Times” problem, arguing that although the Espionage Act has never been applied to a publisher in the past, there’s a first time for everything. In making that argument, the administration will be able to point to the text of the act, which prohibits both the illegal acquisition and the subsequent publication of classified material.
Nor would the Pentagon Papers or The Progressive cases preclude the prosecution of Assange, as they applied only to prior restraints on publication. Neither case held that news outlets could not be prosecuted post-publication. The Supreme Court explicitly left the question unresolved in the Pentagon Papers case.
Trump has long been fixated with the press, which he has often slandered as “the enemy of the people.” In one of his first campaign speeches on the subject, delivered in Fort Worth, Texas, in February 2016, he promised to take revenge on the media if elected, telling a cheering audience:
“I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I’ve ever met. They’re terrible. . . If I become President, oh, do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.”
Driven as always by self-interest and opportunism, Trump has now flipped from professing his “love” for WikiLeaks during the campaign to targeting Assange as part of the enemy. Conveniently, and fully consistent with the President’s opportunism, the current charges lodged against Assange do not involve WikiLeaks’ publication of materials hacked from the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee—an act that clearly benefited Trump.
If Assange is sent to the United States and convicted on all counts, he could be sentenced to 175 years in federal prison. While we are still a long way from that, one thing is certain: Unless and until the prosecution of Assange is dismissed, no publication will be safe from the Trump Administration’s vengeance and overreach.

WiiLeaks founder Julian Assange gestures to the media upon arriving at a London court in April 2019 following his arrest. Jack Taylor/Getty Images

Julian Assange to face extradition hearing in UK next year | ABC News

ABC News (Australia)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will have to spend another eight months behind bars awaiting a full extradition hearing. Lawyers have outlined 18 charges he will face if he's forced to travel to the United States. Chief foreign correspondent Philip Williams was at the Westminster Magistrates Court in London. Read more here: For more from ABC News, click here: Subscribe to us on YouTube: You can also like us on Facebook: Or follow us on Instagram: Or even on Twitter:

Letters from Belmarsh: What Julian Assange says we should do to save his life
By Davey Heller | 18 October 2019,13219

Imprisoned journalist Julian Assange has found another voice from prison in order to urge people to keep fighting for freedom of press, writes Davey Heller.

IN DEFIANCE of all the forces trying to silence Julian Assange, he continues to speak to the world. He is doing so through the only avenue left to him — by sending replies to the letters of supporters that reach him in Belmarsh Prison. These letters are of historic importance, equivalent to the ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ of Martin Luther King Jr.

However, these letters are also of vital current significance. Taken together, they map out the path to building a successful campaign that can free Julian Assange and save his life. The following are proposals for the “free Assange” campaign from Julian’s letters from Belmarsh.

Join or start your own “free Assange” organising committee
‘Start a “free Assange” organising committee in Moscow!’ These were the simple instructions from Julian to a supporter in Moscow. Couldn’t be much clearer, could it? Julian wants people to start “free Assange” groups in their town or city to organise actions demanding he is freed.

There are already a number of such committees organising protests and meetings in Melbourne, Sydney, Stockholm, London, Dusseldorf, Brussels, Denver and Mexico City, but more must be formed. 

In Julian’s letter to Gordan Dimmack from May 2019, Julian stated:

‘I am unbroken, albeit literally surrounded by murderers, but the days when I could read and speak and organise to defend myself, my ideals and my people are over until I am free! Everyone else must take my place.’

It has become crystal clear that there is no “official” cavalry coming — not human rights NGOs, not politicians and, by and large, not trade unions. We certainly can’t depend on justice from the UK and U.S. courts. This campaign will be won by ordinary people coming together and fighting. Julian, in a letter to a French supporter released on Twitter, literally wrote in Morse code, ‘S.O.S.’ It is the universal distress call and it is ordinary people who must respond.

Protest and ‘push on that which will move, not simply that which opposes’

Julian, in a letter released on Twitter on 15 August, gave some very specific advice on the strategy that should guide how protests are conducted.


Ariyana Love@mideastrising
 · Aug 15, 2019
Replying to @mideastrising
"It is people like you, great and small, fighting to save my life that keeps me going. We can win this!" #FreeAssangeNOW #LetterstoJulian

Isabel Victor #FreeASSANGE @IsabelVictor8
Aryana another letter from Mr. Assange , I hope ALL human beings around the GLOBE feel the same as Mr Assange and take his place in a GLOBAL FEELINGS to #UK  #wearealljulianassange #WeAreMilions and we STAND UP with Mr. #Assange #FreeAssange  @foxfire2112 @BombsMemes
11:53 PM - Aug 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
61 people are talking about this

He summed up this strategy stating:
‘Push on that which will move, not simply that which opposes. Said another way, find weak links in the chain that binds me.’

He suggested choosing protest targets from:

‘...organisations that can be influenced and which are not used to protest or have difficulty defending against it ideologically’.

Julian stated such weak links are vulnerable because:

‘...protests are powerful for an office not used to them, even if everyone pretends otherwise. I know having been in one.’

He made a number of specific suggestions for protest targets:

“Liberal” media organisations: such as the offices of the BBC France and Le Monde, presumably to demand they highlight the fundamental threat posed to all journalists by the prosecution of Assange for espionage. Such liberal media outlets either censored by omission these issues, or worse, joined in the smear campaign against Assange. 

Human rights NGOs: such as Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Liberation (a UK-based anti-war and anti-imperialist NGO), presumably to pressure them to take a stronger role in the fight to free Assange and expose them for their failures to vigorously do so thus far. 
Trish Short Lewis@Trishymouse

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is deeply concerned about the ramifications of the US Justice Department’s latest charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for obtaining, receiving and publishing classified documents. …

US – Trump administration adds new charges against Julian Assange for
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is deeply concerned about the ramifications of the US Justice Department’s latest charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for obtaining, receiving and...
10:43 PM - Jun 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Trish Short Lewis's other Tweets

Elite gathering holes: the UK and French Chamber of Commerce were among the targets described by Julian as ‘elite gathering holes’  where the rich and powerful gather.
Australian embassies and consulates: After suggesting this, Julian wrote in brackets, ‘(do more)’. Julian is an Australian citizen, yet every Australian government of both major parties has not demanded that either the UK Government allow Assange to return to Australia (if he wishes) or for the U.S. Government to drop its criminal prosecution of an Australian journalist. The latest example was the refusal of PM Scott Morrison to raise the issue of Assange with President Trump whilst in Washington. The Australian Government is a “weak link” in the chain that binds Julian, however, the enormous support for Julian that exists within the Australian working class makes the Government vulnerable.

“Drop in” protests on potential allies: Julian also suggested:

‘...perhaps if they have been helpful it may make even more sense to have a protest “drop in” on the way somewhere else rather than creating a feeling of adversary.’
This advice might apply to an organisation like a media union or NGO that has spoken out for Julian at times but needs to be prodded to do more.
Adapt to local conditions: Julian was very clear that the suggestions he made were only to give a guideline. He stated:
‘Please adapt above to local conditions. I am very isolated and not sure of the state of play, but you get the idea.’

Stay optimistic and keeping fighting: ‘We can win this!’
Even though Julian is curently in a terrible situation, he has repeatedly used his letters to urge supporters to keep fighting and stay optimistic. For example, in this letter to supporter Brian Cuffe, Julian states:
‘The suffering here is profound, but we can win this!’
 · Aug 21, 2019
#Unity4J Letters from Julian
A special message from #JulianAssange to his supporters:
"Knowing you are out there fighting for me keeps me alive in this profound isolation"
Letter received Aug 16th in Switzerland.#FreeAssangeNOW#WeAreAllAssange#LetterstoJulian
Brian Cuffe@BrianCuffe

Also got a reply from Julian Assange. It says - "Thank you! The suffering here is profound, but we can win this! Knowing you have my back is what gets me through! - JPA"
10:06 AM - Aug 22, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
27 people are talking about this

In another letter he commands:
‘I am in a very dark place presently. Light up the night until victory!’
Write to Julian — your fight is sustaining him
It is clear that the news reaching Julian via his visitors and letters is helping to keep him alive. 
He wrote to Catherine, a supporter in Melbourne in late August:
‘Thank you for fighting to save my life. Please pass on my love and appreciation to all those who showing such commitment to bringing me safely home.’
He wrote to Brian Cuffe:
‘Knowing you have my back is what gets me through!’
And to a supporter in Switzerland, he simply stated:
‘Knowing you are out there fighting for me keeps me alive in this profound isolation.’
Remember what’s at stake
On 2 September, outside the Home Office of the UK in London, just before Roger Waters sang Wish You Were Here, famed Australian journalist John Pilger passed on the following message from Assange to the crowd:
“It’s not just me. It’s much wider. It’s all of us. It’s all journalists, and all publishers who do their job who are in danger.”
The campaign to free Julian Assange is far more than the campaign to free one man, it is a central fight in the defence of not just a free press but of all democratic rights. If his prosecution succeeds, then not only journalists but ordinary people who work against the U.S. war machine are vulnerable to state repression. Without a free press, the working class cannot advance any of its interests. 
The truth is all we have
Julian’s letter to Gordan Dimmack finished with the powerful sentence:
‘Truth, ultimately, is all we have.’
The truth, however, is a powerful weapon. There is no doubt if we can get the truth out of why Julian is being persecuted and what is at stake, ordinary people will respond and join the fight to free him en masse. If this was not true, it would not be necessary for the U.S. and its allies to endlessly smear Assange through the press and censor his plight by omission.
So, you know what to do. Follow Julian’s advice: start or join a free Assange committee, organise and join protests, write to Julian, stay optimistic and fight, remember what’s at stake and wield the truth as our weapon.

Edward Snowden: "If I end up in Guantánamo I can live with that" | Guardian Interviews

The Annihilation of Julian Assange
OCT 29, 2019
Craig Murray

“In Defense of Julian Assange,” edited by Tariq Ali and Margaret Kunstler, is now available for OR Books.

I was deeply shaken while witnessing yesterday’s events in Westminster Magistrates Court. Every decision was railroaded through over the scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening.
Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated aging. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.
But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.

Until yesterday I had always been quietly skeptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and skeptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.

I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.

The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election; a simple clarification the mainstream media appears incapable of understanding.

The purpose of yesterday’s hearing was case management; to determine the timetable for the extradition proceedings. The key points at issue were that Julian’s defense was requesting more time to prepare their evidence; and arguing that political offenses were specifically excluded from the extradition treaty. There should, they argued, therefore be a preliminary hearing to determine whether the extradition treaty applied at all.

The reasons given by Assange’s defense team for more time to prepare were both compelling and startling. They had very limited access to their client in jail and had not been permitted to hand him any documents about the case until one week ago. He had also only just been given limited computer access, and all his relevant records and materials had been seized from the Ecuadorean Embassy by the US Government; he had no access to his own materials for the purpose of preparing his defence.

Furthermore, the defense argued, they were in touch with the Spanish courts about a very important and relevant legal case in Madrid which would provide vital evidence. It showed that the CIA had been directly ordering spying on Julian in the Embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to provide security there. Crucially this included spying on privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers discussing his defense against these extradition proceedings, which had been in train in the USA since 2010. In any normal process, that fact would in itself be sufficient to have the extradition proceedings dismissed. Incidentally I learnt on Sunday that the Spanish material produced in court, which had been commissioned by the CIA, specifically includes high resolution video coverage of Julian and I discussing various matters.

The evidence to the Spanish court also included a CIA plot to kidnap Assange, which went to the US authorities’ attitude to lawfulness in his case and the treatment he might expect in the United States. Julian’s team explained that the Spanish legal process was happening now and the evidence from it would be extremely important, but it might not be finished and thus the evidence not fully validated and available in time for the current proposed timetable for the Assange extradition hearings.

For the prosecution, James Lewis QC stated that the government strongly opposed any delay being given for the defense to prepare, and strongly opposed any separate consideration of the question of whether the charge was a political offense excluded by the extradition treaty. Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. She was open to changes in dates for submission of evidence and responses before this, and called a ten minute recess for the prosecution and defense to agree these steps.

What happened next was very instructive. There were five representatives of the US government present (initially three, and two more arrived in the course of the hearing), seated at desks behind the lawyers in court. The prosecution lawyers immediately went into huddle with the US representatives, then went outside the courtroom with them, to decide how to respond on the dates.

After the recess the defense team stated they could not, in their professional opinion, adequately prepare if the hearing date were kept to February, but within Baraitser’s instruction to do so they nevertheless outlined a proposed timetable on delivery of evidence. In responding to this, Lewis’ junior counsel scurried to the back of the court to consult the Americans again while Lewis actually told the judge he was “taking instructions from those behind”. It is important to note that as he said this, it was not the UK Attorney-General’s office who were being consulted but the US Embassy. Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defense might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved. Baraitser gave a ruling agreeing everything Lewis had said.

At this stage it was unclear why we were sitting through this farce. The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision. The charade might as well have been cut and the US government simply sat on the bench to control the whole process. Nobody could sit there and believe they were in any part of a genuine legal process or that Baraitser was giving a moment’s consideration to the arguments of the defense. Her facial expressions on the few occasions she looked at the defense ranged from contempt through boredom to sarcasm. When she looked at Lewis she was attentive, open and warm.

The extradition is plainly being rushed through in accordance with a Washington dictated timetable. Apart from a desire to pre-empt the Spanish court providing evidence on CIA activity in sabotaging the defense, what makes the February date so important to the USA? I would welcome any thoughts.

Baraitser dismissed the defense’s request for a separate prior hearing to consider whether the extradition treaty applied at all, without bothering to give any reason why (possibly she had not properly memorized what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with). Yet this is Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007 in full:


On the face of it, what Assange is accused of is the very definition of a political offense – if this is not, then what is? It is not covered by any of the exceptions from that listed. There is every reason to consider whether this charge is excluded by the extradition treaty, and to do so before the long and very costly process of considering all the evidence should the treaty apply. But Baraitser simply dismissed the argument out of hand.

Just in case anybody was left in any doubt as to what was happening here, Lewis then stood up and suggested that the defense should not be allowed to waste the court’s time with a lot of arguments. All arguments for the substantive hearing should be given in writing in advance and a “guillotine should be applied” (his exact words) to arguments and witnesses in court, perhaps of five hours for the defense. The defense had suggested they would need more than the scheduled five days to present their case. Lewis countered that the entire hearing should be over in two days. Baraitser said this was not procedurally the correct moment to agree this but she will consider it once she had received the evidence bundles.

(SPOILER: Baraitser is going to do as Lewis instructs and cut the substantive hearing short).

Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in public again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh.

Plainly the authorities were disconcerted by the hundreds of good people who had turned up to support Julian. They hope that far fewer will get to the much less accessible Belmarsh. I am fairly certain (and recall I had a long career as a diplomat) that the two extra American government officials who arrived halfway through proceedings were armed security personnel, brought in because of alarm at the number of protestors around a hearing in which were present senior US officials. The move to Belmarsh may be an American initiative.

Assange’s defense team objected strenuously to the move to Belmarsh, in particular on the grounds that there are no conference rooms available there to consult their client and they have very inadequate access to him in the jail. Baraitser dismissed their objection offhand and with a very definite smirk.

Finally, Baraitser turned to Julian and ordered him to stand, and asked him if he had understood the proceedings. He replied in the negative, said that he could not think, and gave every appearance of disorientation. Then he seemed to find an inner strength, drew himself up a little, and said:

I do not understand how this process is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t even access my writings. It is very difficult, where I am, to do anything. These people have unlimited resources.

The effort then seemed to become too much, his voice dropped and he became increasingly confused and incoherent. He spoke of whistleblowers and publishers being labeled enemies of the people, then spoke about his children’s DNA being stolen and of being spied on in his meetings with his psychologist. I am not suggesting at all that Julian was wrong about these points, but he could not properly frame nor articulate them. He was plainly not himself, very ill and it was just horribly painful to watch. Baraitser showed neither sympathy nor the least concern. She tartly observed that if he could not understand what had happened, his lawyers could explain it to him, and she swept out of court.

The whole experience was profoundly upsetting. It was very plain that there was no genuine process of legal consideration happening here. What we had was a naked demonstration of the power of the state, and a naked dictation of proceedings by the Americans. Julian was in a box behind bulletproof glass, and I and the thirty odd other members of the public who had squeezed in were in a different box behind more bulletproof glass. I do not know if he could see me or his other friends in the court, or if he was capable of recognizing anybody. He gave no indication that he did.

In Belmarsh he is kept in complete isolation for 23 hours a day. He is permitted 45 minutes exercise. If he has to be moved, they clear the corridors before he walks down them and they lock all cell doors to ensure he has no contact with any other prisoner outside the short and strictly supervised exercise period. There is no possible justification for this inhuman regime, used on major terrorists, being imposed on a publisher who is a remand prisoner.

I have been both cataloguing and protesting for years the increasingly authoritarian powers of the UK state, but that the most gross abuse could be so open and undisguised is still a shock. The campaign of demonization and dehumanization against Julian, based on government and media lie after government and media lie, has led to a situation where he can be slowly killed in public sight, and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth about government wrongdoing, while receiving no assistance from “liberal” society.

Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?

Hero or Villain: The Prosecution of Julian Assange | Four Corners
ABC News In-depth
Julian Assange is one of the most influential figures to emerge this century. The Australian born founder of WikiLeaks has harnessed the technology of the digital age to unleash an information war against governments and corporations. WikiLeaks has collaborated with anonymous sources to release highly classified and often deeply embarrassing information to the world. The organisation exploded onto the world stage in 2010 when it began publishing a series of spectacular leaks laying bare the conduct of the United States. At the centre of it all was Julian Assange. The leaks sparked ferocious debate over the right to know and the right to keep secrets. Now Julian Assange is in the fight of his life. In April this year he was dragged, protesting, from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, nearly seven years after seeking diplomatic protection. He is facing extradition to the United States on espionage charges stemming from the spectacular 2010 leaks by Private Chelsea Manning. Everyone has an opinion about Julian Assange, but now you will hear from those who have been on the inside. Four Corners investigates the prosecution of Julian Assange in key interviews with those at the heart of WikiLeaks and those who have sought to bring him to US justice. These insider accounts give powerful insights into how these momentous events have unfolded. For Part Two, The United States vs Julian Assange, click here: For more from ABC News, click here: Subscribe to us on YouTube: You can also like us on Facebook: Or follow us on Instagram: Or even on Twitter:

A statement from the CIJ on the arrest of Julian Assange
The Centre For Investigative Journalism (CIJ)
The CIJ notes with grave concern Julian Assange’s arrest at the Embassy of Ecuador in London today. The organisation that he leads, Wikileaks, was pioneering in its publication of classified media – which is why, in its early years, the CIJ loaned it some of our interns. Wikileaks material from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere has become a unique, invaluable resource for investigative journalists and scholars around the world. Its innovations – from cross-border, collaborative reporting to systems for secure, anonymous leaks – have been borrowed by almost every major news outlet in the world.
Whatever your view of its philosophy of radical transparency, Wikileaks is a publisher. Any charges now brought in connection with that material, or any attempt to extradite Mr Assange to the United States for prosecution under the deeply flawed cudgel of the Espionage Act 1917, is an attack on all of us.
Mr Assange deserves the solidarity of the community of investigative journalists. The world is now watching.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrives at the Westminster Magistrates Court after he was arrested in London, England, April 11, 2019. 

(Hannah McKay/Reuters)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared in a London court on Monday for a hearing on whether he should be extradited to the United States to face spying charges _ Euro News 

Assange, Greenwald, and Journalism
May 28, 2019 1:18 PM
KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON is the roving correspondent for National Review.

Regarding the Julian Assange case, Glenn Greenwald makes an important point, that as a First Amendment question, it does not matter whether Assange is a journalist.
Press freedoms belong to everyone, not to a select, privileged group of citizens called “journalists.” Empowering prosecutors to decide who does or doesn’t deserve press protections would restrict “freedom of the press” to a small, cloistered priesthood of privileged citizens designated by the government as “journalists.” The First Amendment was written to avoid precisely that danger.
That is well said, and the reminder is both urgent and necessary at this particular moment in our history. Greenwald continues:
Most critically, the U.S. government has now issued a legal document that formally declares that collaborating with government sources to receive and publish classified documents is no longer regarded by the Justice Department as journalism protected by the First Amendment but rather as the felony of espionage . . . .
And there is the problem. If the First Amendment does not create a set of privileges for a caste known as “journalists,” then journalists can be prosecuted for violating the law — including the laws governing the dissemination of classified information — in the same way any ordinary citizen would be.
The dissemination of classified documents is illegal in many circumstances. It is, under what seems to me the plain meaning of the law, precisely the felony of espionage in at least some cases. To decline to prosecute those crimes in the interest of enabling journalism is to create exactly the kind of professional caste privilege that Greenwald rightly warns against. We cannot simultaneously hold that the problem is “empowering prosecutors to decide who does or doesn’t deserve press protections” and then try to solve that problem by empowering prosecutors to decide who does or doesn’t deserve press protections.

I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to speak authoritatively about the Assange case, but the language of the federal criminal code appears — to my great surprise — clear enough about this matter.
And that is the fundamental issue: The government has overly broad and sweeping power when it comes to classifying information, and it uses that power too eagerly and too thoughtlessly — and too arrogantly, and too corruptly — for that power to be fully compatible with a free and open society. The solution to bad laws is to repeal or reform the law, not to construct a supplementary social theory to support its selective application.
In keeping with Greenwald’s concerns, writing a journalism carveout into the statute would be a disastrous undertaking, because it would amount to licensing journalists, which would radically reconfigure the First Amendment and our understanding of free speech in an unacceptable way. That is one significant problem with “campaign finance” laws that subject political speech to legislative discipline and then pretend to make an exemption for news media.
The more reasonable approach — which is naturally the more difficult one — would be to acknowledge that the government has a legitimate interest in keeping certain secrets but to narrow its discretion and scope in making those decisions. One important reform would be to eliminate the executive’s effective monopoly on declassification decisions, moving some of that authority into the House of Representatives or the Senate.
And then, if the New York Times receives a classified document through a criminal act or comes into possession of a document the publication of which would be a criminal act, it can make an editorial decision about whether the importance of the story justifies an act of civil disobedience and, if it comes to it, dare the government to prosecute it. Many Americans have sat in jail cells for honorable causes.
If we accept the proposition that the government has a legitimate interest in keeping secrets and in using the law to further that end — and there are some radical libertarians who reject that — and we also accept that the First Amendment applies in the same way to all citizens, then it follows that there will be prosecutions for violating that law, and that acting as a journalist does not provide immunity from such prosecution.

NOW WATCH: 'Reuters Journalists Freed from Myanmar Prison after 500 Days'

Julian Assange and close friend Pamela Anderson 

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange fronts London court | Nine News Australia

By Aaron Walawalkar
News and Digital Editor


 KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON is the roving correspondent for National Review.

Pope Francis's authority challenged by Knights of Malta over condom row
Ancient Catholic order refuses to cooperate with Vatican investigation into sacking of offical over distribution of condoms
Truthful News Media Encourage Open Debate debate topics​
Pope Francis is facing an extraordinary challenge to his authority from an ancient Catholic order that is refusing to cooperate with a Vatican investigation into the sacking of a top official over the distribution of tens of thousands of condoms.
The controversy has been simmering for weeks, but the Knights of Malta’s rejection of the investigation – an unprecedented act in recent times – has now escalated the matter.
The conservative order said in a statement it intended to protect its sovereignty from official oversight and its members had the legal right not to cooperate with the Vatican investigation, which was approved by Pope Francis late last year, and is being led by the Vatican’s second most senior official, the secretary of state, Pietro Parolin.
The fight is increasingly being seen not just as a battle over the investigation, but as a sign of the increasing anger and disobedience by some Catholic traditionalists who are opposed to Francis’s papacy because they view him as too progressive on issues involving social doctrine.
“It is not just the fact that they are defying the pope’s authority, but they are doing so using language that is disrespectful and confrontational,” said Austen Ivereigh, who has written a biography of the pope. “It is as bad as it looks.”
At the heart of the case lies the firing of the Maltese Order’s grand chancellor, Albrecht von Boeselager, who was suspended on 8 December after he refused to resign after allegations that thousands of condoms were distributed in Myanmar by its charitable arm under his watch.
The Catholic church bans the use of contraception and Boeselager has said he stopped the practice when he learned about it.

The pope appointed a special commission to investigate the matter on 22 December, prompting an outcry from the order, which was founded in the 11th century in Jerusalem as the Knights Hospitaller. It came amid tension between Francis and the Vatican’s top diplomat to Malta, the conservative US cardinal Raymond Burke, and reflected concern in the Holy See that Boeselager may have wrongly been told that the pope had blessed his firing.
Burke, who is known in particular for his views on so-called sexual morality, is one of four cardinals who challenged Francis last September when he asked the pope to submit yes or no answers to a series of questions about his call for priests to show “discernment” in their treatment of Catholics, such as divorcees, who live outside the church’s rules.
The papal exhortation – called Amoris laetitia (Joy of Love) – was seen by some traditional Catholics as being too lax because it suggested some divorced and remarried couples could be offered holy communion.
“Burke is becoming a real thorn in the side of the pope. I suspect he is driving this [firing of Boeselager] and it is part of his obsession with sexual morality, as if this is the decisive feature of what it means to be Catholic and faithful to Jesus Christ when in fact scriptures say very little on these matters,” said Robert Mickens, a veteran Rome-based Vatican journalist.
Ivereigh said the dispute was exposing deep differences between Francis’s Vatican and the Maltese order.
“You are dealing here with a very profound culture clash within the Catholic church. Burke and the Knights of Malta represent in many ways everything that the church of the second Vatican council and Francis have been seeking to get away from,” he said.
The Order of Malta is known for its extreme adherence to tradition, including in the importance of respecting its own hierarchy. It employs many trappings of a sovereign state, issuing its own stamps, passports and licence plates and holding diplomatic relations with 106 states, the Vatican included.
Its origins lie in the establishment of an 11th-century hospital in Jerusalem that cared for pilgrims of all faiths, and it now has 13,500 members and 100,000 staff and volunteers who provide healthcare in hospitals and clinics around the world.

"..Don't Extradite Julian Assange to the USA. where Julian will be denied any justice and mayb e murdered .when Julian has committed no crime and just acted as a caring informative journalist exposing the truth provided to Wikileaks by other people whi wanted the the world to know the truth,,,,, how can it ever be considered a crime to publish the truth ......".... Pamela Anderson 

Journalists must pay attention to Julian Assange
31 October 2019

Julian Assange recently faced another stage in the process to extradite him to the US where he could face 175 years of jail time. Felicity Ruby and Naomi Colvin examine the implications for press rights and freedom of speech. 
The UK media has long adopted a cynical attitude towards Julian Assange, but recent footage of the Wikileaks publisher’s recent court appearance is prompting many to have second thoughts.
In the latest clip to find its way on to the internet we see Assange squinting, sealed within the tiny compartment of a Serco prison van leaving Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 21 October, trying to adjust to the bright lights shone directly into his eyes at close range. Several hours earlier, a large and loud crowd of supporters had intercepted another Serco van, but all the chanting, cheering and solidarity was in vain  – Assange’s transport was delayed several hours until almost everyone had left.
Assange looked despondent. His lawyers had requested a routine postponement of his main extradition hearing, which was refused, apparently after the prosecution took instructions from US representatives during a 10 minute recess. His lawyers also requested the magistrate schedule time for arguments about the political nature of the charges against Assange, given that the UK-US Extradition Treaty stipulates that if the offence is political, extradition must not proceed.
The fact that for several years Assange’s meetings with lawyers were filmed and streamed live to the CIA was also raised as a critical issue. But to no avail. The magistrate provided a little more time for pre-trial presentation of evidence, but warned that the main hearing would take place as scheduled, in February 2020, and at London’s Belmarsh Prison.
According to eyewitnesses, Assange appeared disoriented and distressed in court, exhibiting the physical and psychological symptoms of someone arbitrarily detained for nine years. UN rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has put it thus: ‘The evidence is overwhelming and clear… Mr Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.’
Assange completed his sentence in Belmarsh maximum security prison for bail violations on 23 September – thus completing his punishment for applying for and receiving political asylum. For many years, we heard that Julian was in the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden, despite the fact that no country on earth gives asylum to non-citizens to avoid sexual misconduct allegations. As subsequent events have demonstrated, Assange’s fears were more than justified.
Assange broke bail conditions in order to seek asylum from the scenario he now faces: life in prison for publishing. Ecuador granted that asylum because the US obviously intended to prosecute Assange for publishing. This was confirmed shortly after his expulsion from their London embassy, a moment for which the US was poised and ready.
Assange also received asylum because he was ‘without the support of the country of which he is a citizen’  – Australia. While a cross party ‘Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group’ has recently been established in Australia, for the time being his own government remains mute.
The indictments for which Assange is now imprisoned have nothing to do with Sweden, Russia, Trump or his cat. They are a straightforward attempt to prosecute a publisher for committing acts of journalism: specifically the releases of 2010-11 on Guantanamo Bay, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Cablegate. These are the most significant series of public-interest disclosures of our times.
The US Justice Department’s case will hinge on whether it can successfully redefine national-security journalism as a form of espionage. Assange is the first publisher ever to be charged under the Espionage Act, under which it is not possible to mount a public interest defence.
Even those who have spent years demonizing Assange have balked at this lunge of extraterritorial executive power by the US government. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Guardian have expressed grave concern about the charges he faces. UK Special Envoy on Media Freedom Amal Clooney stated at the June Global Conference for Media Freedom, the charges ‘criminalize common practices in journalism’, which the American Civil Liberties Union has warned, ‘establish a dangerous precedent that can be used to target all news organizations that hold the government accountable by publishing its secrets’.
Some have tried to claim Assange is not a journalist, but it’s difficult to argue with the US Army’s Counterintelligence Centre’s description of WikiLeaks as a ‘news organization,’ and Assange as a ‘writer’ and ‘journalist’ that had ‘show[n] journalist responsibility to the newsworthiness or fair use of the classified document’. Or with the Australian Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the union representing journalists and publishers, of which Assange has been a member since 2009, carrying a journalist’s card.
For his work, he was presented with the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism in 2011, the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, the Economist’s New Media Award, the Amnesty International New Media Award and a dozen others. Even the High Court of the United Kingdom in its ruling of 2 November 2011, described Julian Assange as ‘…a journalist, well known through his operation of WikiLeaks’ in its opening line.
For this journalism, he is held, alone for more than 20 hours a day in a cell on the health ward of Belmarsh, only just able to receive documents from his lawyers. Years of unsympathetic and hostile treatment from his peers have left him almost as alone in the public realm as he is now in Belmarsh. And yet it is on this man, resilient but much weakened after a decade of unrelenting pressure, that the future of the freedom to report, and to read, rests.
What have we learned from WikiLeaks?
Here is a sample of WikiLeaks releases, covering many institutions, issues, governments and countries, each provided by a whistleblower who trusted this platform to publish in order to bring about reform of how political, corporate and media elites operate. Each release has shared genuine information about how governments, companies, banks, the UN, political parties, jailers, cults, private security firms, war planners and the media actually operate when they think no one is looking:
Saudi Arabia offered a bribe to the United Kingdom of $100,000 to ‘help’ the UK campaign to be on the Human Rights Council. Part of the deal, offered by the United Kingdom, was a vote swap that saw Saudi Arabia leading the Human Rights Council.
Cables were used in evidence to reveal the truth about the United Kingdom’s establishment of a marine reserve around Diego Garcia: it was to protect the US base and prevent the Chagos Islanders from ever returning home.
The IAEA had warned Japan about safety issues at nuclear plants in 2009, years before the Fukushima disaster, particularly that its power plants could not withstand powerful earthquakes.
Australia worked with Britain, Canada, Japan and others to undermine the cluster munitions treaty, ensuring that deploying US cluster bombs on their soil was not precluded by the convention.
Safety and security issues with the UK’s Trident nuclear-weapon system were revealed to WikiLeaks by Royal Navy Able Seaman William McNeilly.
The Minton Report detailed how Dutch multinational company Trafigura had dumped toxic waste in Ivory Coast. WikiLeaks provided the report that had been suppressed through a super injunction, including to the affected 108,000 people.
The Obama administration spied on UN leadership and personnel, authorising theft of biometric data (DNA, fingerprints, retina scans) and passwords.
El-Masri, a completely innocent German citizen, snatched off the streets, detained, tortured and dumped on the street in Albania, took a case to the European Court of Human Rights, using six cables in evidence.
The Syria Files provided extraordinary and timely insight into the Assad regime through over two million emails from 680 Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies and the regime’s international security contracts.
The Guantanamo Files exposed systematic and routine violations of the Geneva Conventions and abuse of 800 prisoners as young as fourteen and as old as eighty-nine at Guantanamo Bay.
The Collateral Murder classified US military video showed a helicopter gunship slaying eighteen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad, including two Reuters journalists and their rescuers, documenting a war crime.
The United States has a manual for unconventional warfare that was created in 2008 for US Special Forces for when they are overthrowing a government. Explicitly stated is the media’s role in advancing the goals of US national power.
TPP, TTIP and TISA major trade agreements drafted and negotiated in secret without proper democratic oversight were seen by those affected when WikiLeaks provided multiple draft chapters and negotiating positions to the public, fuelling social-justice and fair-trade movements.
Iraqi prisoners were tortured and abused by Iraqi police and soldiers, and US forces were involved in the death and maiming of more than 200,000 people in Iraq.
The Global Intelligence Files revealed the inner workings of private intelligence firm Stratfor, which services the US government and large corporations such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Company, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and numerous government agencies.
The National Security Agency (NSA) World Leaders Targets revealed interceptions of NSA targets, including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s meetings with heads of state, Prime Ministers Berlusconi and Netanyahu, President Hollande, the Japanese cabinet, the UNHCR and the World Trade Organization.
In 2016 a corrupt multibillion-dollar war by Western and Chinese companies grabbed uranium and other mining rights in the Central African Republic (CAR) and escaped paying for the environmental consequences.
Cash payments were made to Indian MPs for their support of a US–India nuclear deal.
Suppressed video footage was released of the 1995 sodium-spill disaster that led to the closure of Japan’s Monju fast-breeder reactor following the 2008 announcement that the reactor would be reopened.
Burma shipped 10,000 tons of rice to feed poor North Korea as payment for sophisticated conventional weapons. The cable references a business source stating that exchanges of weapons for food had gone on for more than five years.
Over 650,000 critical documents relating to Russia under Vladimir Putin have been published, including releases about surveillance contractors in Russia.
The charges – listing them like this makes clear for which releases he is charged and the penalties for various activities associated
Julian Assange faces 18 charges: 

1 Conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act: 10 years
2 Violating the Espionage Act by Manning’s obtaining Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (GITMO) Files: 10 years
3 Violating the Espionage Act by Manning’s obtaining Cablegate: 10 years
4 Violating the Espionage Act by Manning’s obtaining Iraq War Logs: 10 years
5 Attempting to receive and obtain classified information: 10 years
6 Unlawfully obtaining and receiving GITMO Files: 10 years
7 Unlawfully obtaining and receiving Cablegate: 10 years
8 Unlawfully obtaining and receiving Iraq War Logs: 10 years
9 Causing unlawful disclosure by Manning of GITMO Files: 10 years
10 Causing unlawful disclosure by Manning of Cablegate: 10 years
11 Causing unlawful disclosure by Manning of Iraq War Logs: 10 years
12 Causing Manning to communicate, deliver and transmit GITMO Files: 10 years
13 Causing Manning to communicate, deliver and transmit Cablegate: 10 years
14 Causing Manning to communicate, deliver and transmit Iraq War Logs: 10 years
15 ‘Pure publication’ of Afghan War Diaries: 10 years
16 ‘Pure publication’ of Iraq War Logs: 10 years
17 ‘Pure publication’ of Cablegate: 10 years
18 Conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFFA): 5 years 

Felicity Ruby is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney. WikiLeaks is one of the case studies in her research. Naomi Colvin works on whistleblowing research and policy at international NGO Blueprint for Free Speech.

Police arrest of Julian Assange was kidnap, former diplomat says
Friday, April 26, 2019

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was “kidnapped” from the Ecuadorian embassy where he lived for almost seven years after being dragged out when his diplomatic asylum was removed, a former senior diplomat has said.
Fidel Narvaez, who worked at the London embassy as a consul for most of the time Assange lived there, launched a scathing attack on the decision by Ecuador President Lenin Moreno to allow police to enter the building and make an arrest earlier this month.
“What the President has done is unforgivable – it has brought shame to my country,” he said in an interview with the Press Association.
“It was a smear campaign, a smokescreen to cover up the fact that Ecuador was handing over a political refugee to be persecuted”
“It was basically a kidnapping. Julian did not walk out of the embassy of his own accord – he was dragged out by force, which is outrageous.”
Mr Narvaez said that following Mr Moreno’s election last year, staff at the embassy changed, and Assange basically became “persecuted”, denied access to the internet or phones and only allowed to see his lawyers.
“They tried to break him down, imposing unbearable conditions and isolating him for months. He was living under a hostile environment, denied visitors and constantly being accused of breaches of a new protocol. He wasn’t even allowed to have a radio.
“Surveillance cameras were installed, recording every meeting he had with his lawyers and doctors, which is a huge breach of his right to privacy, and violates the United Nations human rights charter.”
Mr Narvaez strongly refuted claims by Mr Moreno that Assange was disrespectful to embassy staff, did not clean up after himself or take care of his pet cat.
“It was a smear campaign, a smokescreen to cover up the fact that Ecuador was handing over a political refugee to be persecuted. That is a crime.”
Mr Narvaez said he believed the UK Government was never interested in resolving the impasse.
He added that he hopes Assange will be able to fight extradition to the United States where he faces being questioned over the activities of WikiLeaks.
A United Nations human rights expert visited Assange in Belmarsh prison in London on Thursday to assess allegations of possible violations of his right to privacy, and later met Ecuador’s ambassador in London.
Joe Cannataci, a UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, had been due to meet the WikiLeaks founder inside the Ecuadorian embassy.
Mr Cannataci said that after Assange’s arrest on April 11, he sought and obtained the approval of the Government to interview him in custody.
“The objective of my visit is to assess allegations of possible violations against Mr Assange’s right to privacy.
“Any concern that I may have as a result of my assessment will be brought to the attention of the relevant government(s) in order to seek clarification and make recommendations for remedial action.”
- Press Association

Wikileaks Truck at The New York Times. Image courtesy Wikileaks Mobile Information Collection Unit 

Julian Assange: Wikileaks founder visited in jail by UN sparking ‘special treatment’ claim
JULIAN Assange has been visited by United Nations human rights inspectors to ensure he is not being ill-treated in Belmarsh Prison, sparking speculation the Wikileaks founder is receiving special privileges.By SIMON OSBORNE
PUBLISHED: 11:31, Sun, May 19, 2019  

The 47-year-old Wikileaks founder is serving a 50-week sentence in the London prison for jumping bail and hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy. The visits by UN officials have sparked accusations he might be receiving special privileges as they are understood to have taken place in the absence of prison staff. A source told the Sun: “I can’t recall another prisoner being afforded the same privileges. The officials refused to follow normal security procedures to have an officer with them.”  
Assange was visited by Nils Melzer, a UN inspector who usually reports on prison torture in corrupt states, on May 10, according to reports.
It followed an earlier visit by privacy campaigner and human rights expert Joseph Cannataci who met Assange in Belmarsh on April 25.
The sources said prison staff wanted a guard in the room during the meetings but the UN inspectors made the officer wait outside where he could not hear anything.
Mr Melzer, who has also worked alongside prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, said he was there to assess the risks of torture and poor treatment Assamge might face in prison. 
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “The UK has a close working relationship with UN bodies and facilitated a visit request made prior to his arrest.”
At the time of his sentencing, UN human rights experts said Assange had received a “disproportionate sentence” for breaching his bail conditions.
Assange faces extradition to the US where where he is wanted over his alleged role in the release of classified military and diplomatic material in 2010 but is also wanted for questioning in Sweden after prosecutors reopened a rape investigation against against the Australian.
The UN has called fr his right to a fair trial to be respected during any extradition process.

Assange  spent nearly seven years holed-up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London after being granted asylum by the South America country.
But he was arrested by Metropolitan Police officers on April 11 when the Ecuadorian government abruptly withdrew its diplomatic protection.
Officials allowed police to enter the building behind Harrods in Knightsbridge after becoming increasingly frustrated at his behaviour. 

Please support freedom of the press, open and free debate,  making it legal to print and publish the truth and vote for the UK Authorities and the Ruling Elite to immediately release Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks from Prison by clicking on   everyday and ask your friends to do the same ...  to access your email address log in page and the best social media, blogs and information links .. if there is an email, social media, blogs and information link you want to place on the home page of ......  please emailinfo@wikipediaexposed.organd let us know ... or just email ......just to say hello or with any other suggestions, ideas or thoughts ... the only alleged crime Julian Assange could be accused of committing was  being involved with publishing the truth of wrongdoing and or illegal acts committed by those in power ....

After pleading guilty to "hacking", Assange escaped prison on the condition he did not reoffend

Julian Assange, Wikileaks Founder was visited by Nils Melzer, a UN inspector,

who usually reports on prison torture in corrupt states, on May 10, according to reports.

Pamela Anderson tweeted her support for Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder

First they came for Assange, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a journalist ....

​"... If wars can be started on lies .... then they can be stopped byb the Truth ,..." ...... Pamela Anderson

Julian Assange is driven to Belmarsh Prison to begin a 50-week sentence for breaching bail

Julian Assange Indictment “Criminalizes the News Gathering Process,” Says Pentagon Papers Lawyer

Democracy Now!

A London judge has ordered WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to appear before a court in February 2020 to face a full extradition hearing. Prosecutors in the U.S. have indicted Assange on 18 counts, including 17 violations of the Espionage Act. This is the first-ever case of a journalist or publisher being indicted under the World War I-era law. Assange said that his life was “effectively at stake” if the U.K. honors a U.S. request for his extradition. Assange is currently serving a 50-week sentence in London’s Belmarsh Prison for skipping bail in 2012. We speak with James Goodale, former general counsel of The New York Times. In 1971, he urged the paper to publish the Pentagon Papers, which had been leaked by whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. #DemocracyNow #Wikileaks #Assange Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs on nearly 1,400 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9AM ET: 

Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: 




Twitter: Instagram: 

SoundCloud: iTunes: 

Daily Email Digest:

Forensic Architecture notes with grave concern today’s arrest of Julian Assange at the Embassy of Ecuador in London.

The pioneering work of Wikileaks shattered every established paradigm of public interest journalism, and ushered in a new era of investigative reporting. Forensic Architecture’s work, and the work of journalists, activists, and investigative agencies around the world, is done in the shadow of the tremendous sacrifices made by Julian and others in the pursuit of radical transparency.
We would not pretend that the life and legacy of Julian and his organisation are unproblematic, and we do not intend to be hagiographic. But Wikileaks have made enemies through their work, and some of those enemies have at their disposal the tools of law, and we should be in no doubt that those tools are being deployed to protect the mechanisms and apparatus that Julian’s work has repeatedly exposed.
We see this clearly in the continued detention of Chelsea Manning, the whistleblower who risked her freedom to shine a vital and uncompromising light on the ‘forever wars’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. We stand also in solidarity with Chelsea, and call for her immediate release.
Wikileaks is a publisher, and we defend unequivocally their right to publish true and newsworthy information. Publishing such information is never a crime, and any attempts to extradite or prosecute individuals or organisations on such a basis, threatens all journalists and publishers, and constitutes an attack on the fundamental right of any society to a free press.

Chelsea Manning on Wikileaks, trans politics & data privacy | ANTIDOTE 2018
SOH Talks & Ideas Published on Sep 18, 2018
After Chelsea Manning’s 2017 release from military prison, she became one of the world’s most prominent activists around areas of data privacy, surveillance, and trans politics. Meet one of the truly extraordinary changemakers at the height of her powers. Chelsea Manning appeared via satellite at ANTIDOTE Festival for a conversation with journalist Peter Greste. They were introduced by Sydney Opera House Head of Talks & Ideas, Edwina Throsby. __ SUBSCRIBE to Sydney Opera House Talks and Ideas: Get a new talk every week with the Ideas at the House podcast: Dive deeper with with some of the world's leading thinkers and culture creators on It's A Long Story: Like Sydney Opera House on Facebook: Follow Sydney Opera House on Twitter:
Category Education
LaDonna Coble
I stand in solidarity WITH you, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and the ex President of Ecuador! Truth died with hope and regard for human rights and life the day Julian Assange was dragged out of that embassy. #FreeJA

WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange says there is a "high chance" he would be killed in a US jail
Edited on Thu Dec-23-10 10:24 PM by Turborama
Source: AFP
WIKILEAKS chief Julian Assange says there is a "high chance" he would be killed in a US jail if he were to be extradited from Britain to the USA on espionage charges. The Australian is on bail in Britain fighting a bid by Sweden to extradite him over sex assault claims, but Washington is believed to be considering how to indict him over the leaking of thousands of US diplomatic cables. Mr Assange told The Guardian it would be "politically impossible" for Britain to send him across the Atlantic, adding that the government of Prime Minister David Cameron would want to show it had not been "co-opted" by Washington. "Legally the UK has the right to not extradite for political crimes. Espionage is the classic case of political crimes. It is at the discretion of the UK government as to whether to apply to that exception," he said. Mr Assange added that if the United States succeeded in getting him extradited from Britain or Sweden, then there was a "high chance" of him being killed "Jack Ruby-style" in an American prison.
Read more:
The Guardian article: 
A historical refresher for anyone who might not know what Jack Ruby did...
Truthful News Media Encourage Open Debate debate topics

Pamela Anderson arrived at Belmarsh Prison to visit Julian Assange

Pamela Anderson speaks out after visiting Julian Assange in prison