EMPIRIA Magazin XI. évfolyam. 2012. július-augusztus.  Kuliffay Hanna írása.

© Minden jog fenntartva.

Az Assange-ügy túlmutat önmagán

"A titkosításnál semmi sem korlátozza hatékonyabban a demokráciát." (Ramsey Clark)

Hőssé és mártírrá a körülmények teszik az embert. Az igazságtalan, jogtalan, kilátástalan körülmények. Senkiben sem ébred csak úgy, teniszparti vagy porszívózás közben, az önfeláldozás sürgető vágya. Nem is lenne emberi.  Legtöbben még a kockázatvállalástól is tartunk, a bizonytalanságtól is rettegünk, a kellemetlenséget is el akarjuk kerülni. Ha úgy könnyebb, hajlandók vagyunk megalkudni a látszatszabadsággal. A látszatdemokráciával. Azzal, hogy a hatalom két jelöltje közül a kevésbé rosszat választhatjuk. Szemet hunyunk, amíg csak másokat zaklatnak, tesznek rács mögé, temetnek tömegsírba. Próbálunk nem gondolni rá, sőt emlékezetünkből is kitörölni, hogy az ellenállás foka (egyben) fokmérője a szabadságunknak.(*1)

Julian. Linda Nylind/Guardian. 2010

Az újonnan elnöknek választott Barack Obama 2009. január 21-én azt a fontos kijelentést tette, minden hivatalos intézménynek és ügynökségnek kötelessége tudni, hogy az ő kormányzata nem azoknak az oldalán áll, akik próbálják eltitkolni az információkat, hanem éppen azokén, akik  próbálják (a nyilvánosság) tudomására hozni.(*2) Ennek azonban a gyakorlatban éppen az ellenkezője történik. Vajon kuncognak ezen a Fehér Házban? Vagy inkább lenézik érte a balgákat, akik komolyan vették? Az illetékes minisztériumok és belügyi ügynökségek még a Bush-adminisztráció információ-korlátozásán is túllépnek; az internetes sajtó központilag szervezett kontroll alá vétele során került főhelyre, és vált figyelmeztető, sőt elrettentő csúcsepizódjává az Assange-ügy.

Mikor nemrégen Leon Panetta, Obama  védelmi minisztere hivatalosan elrendelte, hogy a Pentagon rendszeresen figyelje az összes sajtóorgánumot, közölnek-e leleplező, sőt klasszifikált információt, Naomi Wolf író, publicista, egyetemi tanár, társadalmi és háborúellenes aktivista  alig tudta fékezni dühös kiábrándultságát amiatt, hogy „az Egyesült Államok az 1930-as évekbeli Szovjetúnió színvonalára süllyedt”. Úgy nyilatkozott, hogy bár előre látható volt, mégis szinte hihetetlen, hogy idáig fajulhatott a helyzet, hiszen „az újságíró feladata (éppen az), hogy klasszifikált információt közöljön” – tehát olyan titkosított döntéseket és intézkedéseket leplezzen le, amelyek révén transzparenssé teheti a kormány, a kongresszus, a politikusok vagy vezető pártfunkcionáriusok zárt közegben történő kétes tevékenységét.

Wolf hangsúlyozta a különbséget a (szigorúan titkos és bizalmas) nemzetbiztonságot veszélyeztető információ kiszivárogtatása és a kormány által üptre titkosított iratok, rendelkezések, e-mailek nyilvánosságra hozatala között. (Az utóbbira –  mintegy visszaélésekre figyelmeztetőkként – a vészjelzők [whistle blowers] vállalkoznak, akiknek társadalmi haszna miatt még speciális jogvédelem is jár, amennyiben megtorlásnak esnek áldozatul.) Wolfe szerint Julian Assange esete nem más, mint „globális embervadászat, hogy megbüntessenek és elhallgattassanak egy whistle blower kiadót, aki "nem egy (belső használatra szigorúan zárolt anyagot) kiszivárogtató egyén, hanem egy közreadó.” Ugyanúgy, mint  a New York Times, a Reuters, a Washington Post, a New Yorker, a Guardian/UK és más lapok, újságok is, amelyek rendszeresen közölnek névtelen informátoraiktól kapott füleseket, hivatkoznak meg nem nevezett magas rangú hivatalnokokra, szenátorokra, katonai tanácsadókra,  vagy ismertetnek ’kormánykörökből’ kiszivárgó állítólagos döntéseket… Aligha vehető készpénznek, ami úgy kezdődik: „Washingtoni tudósítások szerint…”

A vezető amerikai újságok korábban még átvették a WikiLeaks szakértő elemzői és konzultánsai által szerkesztett és ellenőrzött, hitelesnek ítélt közléseit, vagy esetleg hivatkoztak rá, aztán hirtelen fordult a kocka. Rájöttek, hogy a WikiLeaks izgalmas hírdömpingje, az árnyékhatalom kártyáiba való betekintés lehetősége és visszaéléseinek satírozásnélküli leleplezése nagyobb szenzáció lett, mint az ő tömegfogyasztásra pépesített, rémhírekkel és uszítással spékelt propagandájuk. A vazallus médiának nemcsak presztízsveszteséget jelentett, hogy kiderült, mennyi mindent elhallgattak, letagadtak, kitaláltak vagy félremagyaráztak, hanem kiábrándult olvasók elpártolása miatt anyagit is. Az üzleti szemponton túlmenően felmerül a kérdés, van-e megfelelő indok, amiért teljesen figyelmen kívül hagyják a saját szakmai alapszabályzatukat, sőt hallgatásukkal asszisztáljanak egy kollégájuk rágalmazáson alapuló jogtalan fogvatartásához, vagyonának elkobzásához, jövőtlenségéhez, esetleg a kivégzéséhez is?

Az amerikai Hivatásos Zsurnaliszták Társaságának (Society of Professional Journalists) etikai szabályzata a következőt írja elő:

Kerüljük el a titkos(ított) vagy más tiltott módszerrel szerzett információt, kivéve, ha a nyílt (szabályszerű) módszerek nem teszik lehetővé a nagyközönség számára létfontosságú információszerzést.

Ezek szerint tehát, amennyiben egy megszálló ország katonasága háborús bűnöket követ el, és annak bizonyítéka egy újságíró vagy kiadó tudomására jut, annak nyilvános közlése szabályszerű és megengedett. Ha a hatóságok ennek ellenére felelősségre akarják vonni a WikiLeaks kiadóját és szerkesztői gárdáját, a vezető újságoknak és az Újságíró Szövetségnek kézzel-lábbal tiltakozni kellene az állami megtorlás ellen. Miért mégis a néma lapulás? Az alattomos csend?

Az említett nyereségvágy mellett a szakmai irigység erre a másik ok. A már befutottak nem akarnak osztozni az érvényesülési lehetőségen. Maguknak akarják megtartani a hasznos összeköttetéseket, a másokra gyakorolt befolyás aphrodisiacumját, az elérhető sikert, utazási lehetőségeket, könyvszerződéseket, díjakat… az áhított hallhatatlanságot.  Sokan közülük annyira középszerűek, könnyen lecserélhetők lennének. Ezek Assange függetlenségét, technikai fölényét, nemzetközi népszerűségét, híres méltatóit, kitüntetéseit, erkölcsi tartását összevetve mit se bánják, vagy éppen szívrepesve várják, hogy a megvesztegethetetlen 'külsős' végleg eltűnjön a színről.

A legsikeresebb zsurnaliszták között szépen vannak 'föntről' engedélyezett 'megmondók', vagy jó pénzért bérelt 'hírharangok', akik akár politikai célból, akár valamilyen megbízatást teljesítve rendszeresen röpítenek nemzetbiztonságilag komolyabbnak és veszélyesebbnek tűnő híreket/álhíreket világgá, mint Assange valaha is. És vannak olyan nagy vagány, minden kockázatra kész tényfeltáró riporterek is, akik a régész vagy a kutatóorvos megszállottságával próbálják feltárni a hatalmi elit alattomos taktikai lépéseit, leleplezni gátlástalan imperializmusát, jogtalanságainak erőszak útján való érvényesítését.(*3)

Egy ilyen (Irán elleni) támadás, semmi kétség, fő prioritás a Pentagon vezető hivatalnokai számára.  Januárban a kiemelt státuszú tényfeltáró riporter, Seymour Hersh azt jelentette a New Yorker magazinnak, hogy a Védelmi Minisztérium titkos megfigyelői portyázásokat folytat Iránban, feltételezhetően abból a célból, hogy rejtett nukleáris és rakétakilövő állomásokat azonosítson be, amelyeket a jövőben saját rakétáikkal kilőhetnek.

“Nekem többször ismételten is azt mondták, hogy a következő stratégiai célpont Irán,” mondta Hersh vezető beosztású katonai személyekkel folytatott interjúira utalva. (Michael Klare: From Oil, Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran. TomDispatch.com. April 11, 2005)

Témánk kapcsán – a közlés jelentőségétől elvonatkoztatva – felvetődik  a kérdés, került forró vízbe emiatt Hersh (vagy a New Yorker főszerkesztője) akárcsak egy napig is? Felmerült ellene bármilyen fórumon is katonai titkok közreadása miatt a hazaárulás vádja, ahogy Assange ellen? Javasolta valaki is, hogy egyszerűen el kéne intézni? És ha nem, miért nem?

A Rupert Murdock tulajdonában levő Fox tv-adó business részlegében, Follow the Money, egy újjászületett keresztény száraz alkoholista (à la W. Bush), Bob Beckel politikai elemző és kommentátor, a következőt 'hörögte' 2010. december 6-án leplezetlen Assange-gyűlöletében:

“Egy halott ember nem tud kiszivárogtatni dolgokat. Ez a fickó egy áruló, nemzetellenes áruló, és megszegte az Egyesült Államok minden törvényét. És mivel én nem vagyok oda a halálbüntetésért, így… (szerintem) csak egy módon lehet ezt elintézni: illegálisan lelőni a szukakölykét.”

Beckel vagy nem tudta, vagy abszolút figyelmen kívül hagyta, hogy Julian Assange ausztrál újságírói igazolvánnyal és sajtókitüntetésekkel rendelkező ausztrál állampolgár, akire nem vonatkoztathatók az amerikai törvények. (Pedig tudhatta volna, hiszen csak pár hónapja volt, hogy Assange ill. a WikiLeaks elnyerte a 2011-es Walkleys Díjat a zsurnalizmusban teljesített legkiválóbb munkásság kategóriában [Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism], amelyet 1994 óta évente szavaznak meg az újságírás kiválóságainak, akik elkötelezettségüket és kiváló teljesítményüket bizonyították.)  Ami külön érdekesség, hogy a gyilkosságra való nyílt felbujtás  nem háborította fel a műsor vendégeit – senki sem tiltakozott ellene. 

A New Yorkerhez hasonlóan a Washington Post körmére sem néztek, mikor 2005. február 13-án azt jelentette, hogy a Pentagon már több mint egy éve teljesen automatizált kémrepülőgépeket röptet a szuverén Irán légterében – amit egyébként az Irániak igazoltak, mikor lelőttek, vagy megtaláltak belőlük egy-egy eltévedt példányt. (Tiltakoztak is a veszélyhelyzetet teremtő provokációk ellen az ENSZ-ben, de eredménytelenül.)

“A kisméretű pilóta nélküli gépek iraki katonai létesítményekből behatolnak Irán légterébe, és radart, videokamerát használnak, álló felvételeket készítenek és (speciális) légszűrőket alkalmaznak, amik arra tervezettek, hogy nyomát leljék a nukleáris aktivitásnak, és olyan információt gyűjtsenek be, amely nem érhető el a műholdak révén. A légi kémkedés az előirányzott katonai előkészületek velejárója egy alkalmi légitámadáshoz, és az intimidálás eszközeként is alkalmazott.”

A szakma azonban nemcsak féltékenységből és kenyéririgységből nem áll ki  Assange mellett, hanem azért is, mert nem ért egyet a WikiLeaks felvilágosító, 'népművelő' céljával. A hatalmat kiszolgáló, sőt részben vele azonosuló amerikai közmédia  érdeke ugyanis egy tájékozatlan, bizonytalan, hiszékeny, irányítható néptömeg. Ezzel szöges ellentétben áll a WikiLeaks alapítógárdájának célkitűzése, hogy eredeti, teljes, cenzúrázatlan, közvetlenül elérhető forrásanyagként szolgáljon az akadémia, az intézetek, az iskolák, a web-újságok, a szabadúszók, a tényfeltárók, a blogírók és a széleskörű publikum számára. Ráadásként magáévá tette Assange munkásságának motivációját, az áldozatok, a védtelenek, a járulékos kárnak elkönyveltek védelmét... hálátlan és nem kifizetődő életfilozófia, amely abszolút idegen a vazallusmédiától.

Ennek egyik jellemző példája, hogy az Afganisztán és Iraki elleni intervenciók vércsapoló időszakában médiakörökben közszájon forgott, hogy a munkájukat végző riporterek és operatőrök gyakran váltak katonai likvidálás áldozatává. A nemzetközi újságíró szövetség és emberjogi szervezetek  hiába tiltakoztak és követeltek felelősségre vonást. A brit Independent közel-keleti szakértője és állandó tudósítója, Robert Fisk, az intervenció legelején, 2003. április 9-én, a következő címmel közölt nyíltan vádló, felelőst követelő cikket: Talán az amerikai katonaság szándékosan akar zsurnalisztákat ölni.

Az amerikaiak első alkalommal az al-Dzsazira riporterét ölték meg, és megsebesítették az operatőrét. Aztán, négy órán belül megtámadták a Reuters bagdadi televízió-büróját, megölték az egyik operatőrét és vele a Spain Tele 5 csatorna operatőrét, miközben megsebesítették a Reuters négy munkatársát. El lehet hinni, hogy ezek csak véletlen balesetek voltak? Vagy lehetséges, hogy a megfelelő szóhasználat ezekre – az első egy sugárhajtású repülővel, a másik egy M1A1 Abrams-tankkal (véghezvitt) – gyilkosság?

Ők persze nem az első zsurnaliszták voltak, akik meghaltak Irak angol-amerikai inváziója során. Terry Lloyd-ot az ITV-től lőtték agyon amerikai katonák, akik állítólag iraki járműnek nézték a kocsiját. (Eltünt) munkacsoportja hollétéről mai napig sem tudni semmit. A Washington Post tudósítója, Michael Kelly tragikus módon egy kanálisba fulladt. Két újságíró Kurdisztánban halt meg. Két másik újságírót – egy németet és egy spanyolt – hétfőn éjjel öltek meg  Bagdadban az amerikai bázison két amerikaival együtt, mikor egy iraki rakéta robbant a közelükben. (…) Az amerikaiak pechére (ez is) minden valószínűséggel gyilkosságnak látszik.

Az Újságírók Védelmi Bizottságának (CPJ) naprakész listázása szerint a 20 “leghalálosabb ország” között, ahol újságírókat likvidáltak, Irak áll az első helyen: 2003 nyara óta 93-an lettek előre kitervelt gyilkosság áldozatai. (Ezt megelőzően, Szaddám Huszein  “rémuralmának” 1992-2003-ig tartó időszaka alatt csupán egyetlenegy.) A bizottság igazgatója, Ann Cooper 2003 végén közölte, “30 nemzetközi médiaszervezet közös panaszt emelt a Pentagonnál, amiért számos példa volt rá, hogy az amerikai katonák zaklatják az újságírókat, és esetenként elkobozzák vagy tönkreteszik a felszerelésüket, digitális kamerájuk lemezfelvételeit és vidokazettáit.” (Egy Rolling Stone-ban megjelent cikkben pedig egy riporter azt nyilatkozta, jobban félnek a 'biztonságis' Blackwater cég paramilitáris  zsoldosaitól, akikkel tele van a nemzetközi Palestine Hotel, mint az ellenségtől.) Szemtanúk vallomásán és a holttesteken kívül azonban nem volt olyan bizonyíték  a panasztevők kezében, ami katonai bíróságon elég lett volna az igazságszolgáltatáshoz.

Mikor 2007 nyarán a Reuters hírügynökség tudomására jutott, hogy létezik egy videofelvétel két zsurnalisztájának (és a közelükben tartózkodó fegyvertelen irakiaknak)Bagdadban történt agyonlövéséről, hiába próbálta megszerezni őket az amerikai államszervektől, hogy eljárást kezdeményezhetett volna a telitalálataikon szórakozó katonák ellen. Annak ellenére tagadták meg a felelősségrevonás lehetőségét, hogy mikor az Egyesült Államok ratifikálta a „kínzás és más embertelen vagy degradáló eljárás és büntetés elleni egyezményt”, akkor elkötelezte magát, hogy hivatalos eljárást indít azok ellen, vagy kiadja azokat, akik bizonyos bűntényeket követnek el, vagy bármilyen formában részt vállalnak benne.

A nemzetközi humanitárius jogi (vagy nemzetközi hadjogi) ún. Genfi egyezmények szintén ebben a szellemben lettek ratifikálva, leginkább a fegyvertelen polgári lakosság védelmében. Ennek ellenére a barátinak tartott Reuters mindenhol falakba ütközött. A végleges eltussolást megakadályozandó hozta végül nyilvánosságra a videót a WikiLeaks, mikor eljuttatták hozzá. Sem Assange, sem munkatársai nem tudták, hogy honnan származott, de úgy érezték, hogy az indokolatlan, nonchalance gyilkosságsorozat hivatalos vizsgálatot és széleskörű médiafigyelmet igényel. Az eljárás pontosan megfelelt az irányelvnek, amit Assange vallott: „szükség van a kormányszervek transzparenciájára, hogy csökkenjen a korrupció”.

Az amerikai kormányszerveknek azonban erről egészen más volt a véleménye. Mivel a nagy felháborodást kiváltó videófelvétel a világhálóra is felkerült, a zsurnaliszták levadászását nem lehetett tovább tagadni –  a figyelmet másra kellett irányítani: a háborús bűn helyett a hírközlőre.  Mikor ennek nyilvánvaló jelei mutatkoztak (Assange észrevette, hogy követik, figyelik, repülőtéren elkobozták az iratait, laptopját stb.), még talán lehetősége lett volna visszakozásra és megalkuvásra, de felelősségtudatból, kötelességérzetből nem volt hajlandó erre.

Ügyvédjei figyelmeztették, hogy ne tegyen eleget az Egyesült Államokba történt invitálásának, amit meg is fogadott, de egyébként nem fogta vissza magát. Sőt, nyilvános fórumok és konferenciák meghívott előadójaként továbbra is kiállt a médiaszabadság globális jogossága mellett, és ismertette azokat  az eszközöket és módszereket, amikkel a jogfolytonosságot védeni és biztosítani lehet. Angliai háziőrizetben tartása folyamán pedig olyan videóriportokat készített komoly, híres emberekkel, akik haladó szellemű, építő, felelős, világbékére törekvő, nemzetérdekű társadalmi és politikai szemléletükkel  soha nem kaptak volna szót a világviszonylatban is irányadó, ún. "mainstream" médiában.

Egy 2006-ban publikált esszéjében Assange következőképpen határozta meg a WikiLeaks távlati célját:

“Ahhoz, hogy egy rezsim eljárásmódját radikálisan átalakítsuk, tisztán és merészen kell gondolkodnunk, mivel ha valamit is tanultunk, az az, hogy a rezsimek nem akarnak megváltozni. Gondolkodásmódunkban túl kell lépnünk azokon, akik előttünk jártak, és ehhez olyan technológiai variánsokat kell felfedeznünk, amelyek cselekvésre ösztönöznek – amilyenekre az elődeink még nem voltak képesek.”

Egy azonos évből származó blogjából nyilvánvaló, hogy döntő jelentőséget tulajdonít a fejlett technológiának a nyitottabb (tájékozott, működésében megfigyelhető, döntéseiért elszámoltatható) társadalom megvalósítása érdekében:

Minél titkosabb és igazságtalanabb egy szervezet, annál inkább kelt félelmet, és annál inkább idéz elő paranoiát a vezetésben és az irányító klikkben (bármi leleplező) kiszivárogtatás. (…) Mivel az igazságtalan rendszerek természetüknél fogva ellenzékiséget váltanak ki, és számos helyen éppen csak birtokolják a hatalmat, és alig tartják (kézben) a fennhatóságot, a tömeges kiszivárogtatás különösen sérülékennyé teszi azokkal szemben, akik nyitottabb formátumú kormányzással akarják helyettesíteni. 

Bár az Amerika-barát sajtó próbálja elhallgatni az Assange-ügy politikai indíttatású hátterét – a médiaszabadság csak a választottakra vonatkozik – a Sydney Morning Herald azonban augusztus 18-án közölte, hogy az ausztrál diplomáciai testületből már kb. másfél évvel korábban jelezték, hogy az amerikai hatóságok állandóan követik a WikiLeaks kiadóját. Akik továbbra is elhitték, sőt még ma is elhiszik, hogy Washington a svéd nővédelem bajnokaként laftatja Assange sarkában a CIA-t, és lejárató szexfotók reményében kobozta el a laptopját, azoknak olcsón ajánlható megvételre Washingtonban a George Washington-obeliszk.

Két éve a TIME magazin riportere – de mások is – csúfolódva paranoidnak nyilvánította Assange-t.(*4) Aztán persze meglepetést keltett, mikor Angliában letartóztatták és magánzárkába csukták, majd hónapokig háziőrizetben tartották. Amit viszont még kritikusai sem tételezhettek fel, hogy a brit legfelsőbb bíróság olyan döntést hoz, hogy bár soha nem emeltek ellene hivatalosan vádat, mégis ki kell adni Svédországnak, ahonnan a Pentagon vagy a State Department kikérheti egy bilincsben folytatott kis kihallgatásra. Rá akarják ugyanis kényszeríteni egy vizsgálati fogságban levő amerikai  whistle-blower, az iraki háborús visszaéléseket leleplező Bradley Manning elleni tanúskodásra. 

Ami egyformán sokkhatás volt mindenkinek, aki odafigyelt erre az aszimmetrikus, drámai kűzdelemre, az az angol hatóságok nyílt fenyegetése volt az Assange-nak menedékjogot adó Ecuador követsége ellen.  A diplomácia történetben példa nélkül álló eset volt a Bécsi Egyezmény ilyenféle félrerúgása, amelynek súlyosságán az sem enyhített semmit, mikor London a botrányszagtól fuldokolva rákényszerült, hogy visszavonja a követség szuverén területére vonatkozó elfogatási parancsot.

Craig Murray, volt brit diplomata szerint külügyes kollégái tisztában voltak  annak abszurdításával, amit az ecuadori követség fegyveres lerohanásával való fenyegetés jelentett, de "nem tudtak ellenállni a washingtoni nyomásnak".  Nem újdonság, hogy a baráti kormányok időnként ugyanúgy bekényszerülnek a nagyhatalmi kalodába, mint az ellenségnek tekintettek.  Murray szerint az a tény, hogy a brit külügyminiszter, William Hague a nyilvánosság előtt invázióval fenyegetődzött, "újabb példa a nemzetközi jog koncepciójának teljes mellőzésére azon neokonzervatív junta által, amely jelenleg uralja a volt nyugati demokráciákat".

Ezek után teljesen lehetetlenné vált a hivatalos álláspont, miszerint az Assange elleni nemzetközi embervadászat és vele különböző jogi túlkapások szexuális etikátlansága miatt történtek. Ha eddig csak szánalmas volt ez a nyilvánvalóan koholt vádaskodás, most már nevetséges is, amellett, hogy felháborító. Vajon akad  az ügyet figyelemmel kísérők között még olyan, aki elhiszi, hogy a hajsza valóban csak Julian Assange ellen folyik? Hogy ő maga a célpont, ha nekikeseredve esetleg kilépne a követség kapuján?Aligha.

Valójában kezdettől fogva a transzparencia, a "nyitott formátumú kormányzás" és a szabad információáramlás ideáinak az Internet révén fokozódó igénye jelentett a világhatalomra nézve veszélyt. Ennek az igényjogosultságnak Assange lett a legelismertebb képviselője, majd a digitális generáció számára a céltudatos kiber-aktivizmus szimbóluma. És, hacsak valami rendkívüli dolog nem történik, az áldozata is lesz -- és egyben a hőse.

*1 Eredeti: “The state can't give you freedom, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, than you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.” (Utah Phillips labor organizer, radio show host, poet, folk singer)

*2 Eredeti: "Every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known." (President Barack Obama. January 21, 2009)

*3. Az újságírói jog és etika 1909-es szabályzata szerint a hivatásosok a köz érdekében bármilyen információszerzési módszerrel élhetnek: Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. (Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics -- Seek Truth and Report it. SPJ improving and protecting journalism since 1909)

*4 A felszínes vagy megfáradt átlagember még ma is azt hiszi, hogy az Assange elleni hajsza, rágalom és fenyegetés valami nőügy miatt van, sőt nemi erőszak miatt, és Julian csak feltűnéskeltésből, vagy hogy mentse a bőrét túlozza el, hogy a CIA Amerikának kiadatva életfogytiglani börtönre akarja őt ítéltetni.

Augusztus 31, 2012

A témában lásd még: Hidegvérrel Julian Assange és a sajtószabadság ellen; Lapszemlék, kommentárok 2010 II. félév  12 ; Lapszemlék-kommentárok 2011 I. félév  15. és 14. írás

Addenda:

Az idő múlásával sokak számára a feledés homályába vész, hogy Julian Assange Svédországban egyszer már eleget tett egy bírósági meghallgatás követelményének, amely során nyilvánvalóvá vált az ellene felhozott vádak alaptalansága, sőt együgyű volta… (A döntést női bíró, Eva Finne hozta: "Nem hiszem, hogy (bármi) ok van arra gyanakodni, hogy (Assange) erőszakot követett el.") Így szabad emberként távozott teljesen legálisan Angliába, mikor az illetékesek új eljárást indítottak ellene (ehhez valószínűleg sértődött női vádlóinak már nem sok köze lehetett), és egy új bíró újabb kihallgatást rendelt el, sőt az Interpolt is bevonta… Példa nélküli, rendkívüli eljárás volt ez, kölcsönös bosszúvágyakon és közös megegyezésen alapuló liaisonok esetében. (Bár többek között a Guardian is azt írta, hivatalosan soha senki nem vádolta Assange-t nemi erőszakkal.) [Kuliffay]

Hillary Clinton február 16-án a George Washington Egyetemen elítélte azokat a diktatórikus kormányokat (félreérthetetlenül Iránra és Kínára célozva), amelyek letartóztatják az ellenük tüntetőket és gátolják a virtuális véleménynyilvánítás szabadságát. Azt azonban elfejtette megemlíteni, hogy az Obama-kormány éppen olyan rendelet kidolgozásával foglalkozik, amely feljogosítja  az amerikai  kormányszerveket, hogy szükség esetén (tömegtüntetések, sztrájkok szervezése, forradalmi előkészületek, sorozás elleni tiltakozás) meghatározatlan időre befagyaszthassák az Internet-szolgáltatást.  A nyilvánvaló hipokrízisen felháborodva egy publicista és régi politikai aktivista csendben felállt és hátat fordított a szónokló Clintonnak. Rávetődő biztonsági emberek azonnal földre teperték, és a sérülésektől vérző idős (mint utólag kiderült, 71 éves) embert kivonszolták a teremből. Az ajtóból még visszakiáltott: "Ez Amerika?" Mint a You tube videóján is látható, Clinton egész idő alatt szemrebbenés nélkül folytatta a véleményszabadság és a tiltakozás jogosságát hangoztató beszédét.  A kínai „Beiging Daily” vezércikke tavaly decemberben azt írta -- és ezt Clinton azóta akaratlanul is megerősítette –, „Assange szerencsétlen esete számunkra azt bizonyítja, hogy az Amerika által hirdetett szabad véleménynyilvánítás nem abszolút szabadság, hanem annak csak egy fajtája és fokozata, és határai vannak.” A napilap szerkesztősége szerint az igazság felfedésével, kényelmetlen és eltitkolt dolgok leleplezésével Assange „átlépte az amerikai szólásszabadság határát, és ennek következtében az ellene folytatott világraszóló embervadászat nem meglepő”.  De még ha a pekingi lapnak igaza is van, és mindez várható volt, akkor is megdöbbentő, sőt kétségbeejtő, és a végrehajtási eszközök -- mint koholt vádak, halálos fenyegetések, az Interpol bevonása, vádemelés nélküli fogvatartás -- félelmetesek és visszataszítóak. "Ez Amerika?" (Kiemelés Kuliffay Hanna írásából. EMPIRIA Magazin Kommentárok, elemzések, lapszemlék rovat, 5. írás.  2011. február 20)

Obama mindig tudja, mit kell a népnek mondani, hogy aztán pontosan az ellenkezőjére adjon utasítást vagy engedélyt. Ime a legutóbbi állítása, amiből arra következtethetünk, hogy további rendeletek készülnek a médiaszabadság  korlátozására: Az Internet-szabadság valami olyasmi, ami iránt tudom, hogy mindenki szenvedélyesen érez; én magam is. (Tehát) mindannyian keményen fogunk harcolni azért, hogy továbbra is biztosítva legyen az Internet mindenki számára elérhető szabadsága – kezdve azoktól, akik egy ideát akarnak kifejezni, azokig, akik üzletet akarnak nyitni. És bár alkalmanként lesznek köztünk ellentétek a különböző törvényjavaslatok részleteit illetően, én nem fogok eltávolodni ettől a princípiumtól – és ez tükröződni  fog a (demokrata) pártprogramban.  (Barack Obama elnök írásbeli web-interjújából. 2012. augusztus 30)

“As people who have devoted our lives to forging a more peaceful and just world, we salute Manning's courage and condemn his treatment at the hands of the government.” (Nobel Laureates Salute Bradley Manning: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. 2o12)

"The fact that far too many journalists continue to lose their lives, in times of peace and for reasons related to their professional activities, is an indictment of many governments' failure to fulfill their obligations to protect our colleagues' most fundamental right -- the right to life. This involves taking a clear stand against states which systematically violate their own laws and international treaties they are a Party to, in denial of -- or indifference to -- what has become a regular pattern of targeted killings of journalists." (IFJ Human Rights and Communications Officer, Ernest Sagaga’s statement to the Council. June 21, 2012) 

Patrick Cockburn, már halálos betegen, ismét figyelmeztetett rá, hogy mivel az állam képes kontrollálni és manipulálni az információt, így a szavazati jognak nagyjából nincs jelentősége. A béke és humanitás intellektuális körökben népszerű bajnoka a brit Independentben július 2-án megjelent cikkében továbbá hangsúlyozta, “Ez az, amiért az olyan emberek, mint Julian Assange annyira alapvetőek a demokratikus választáshoz.” Cockburn tisztában volt az ócska trükkel, hogy Assange privát életét használták fel a WikiLeaks valóságos győzelmének elpalástolására. A cél szentesíti az eszközt mentalitásnak megfelelően döntöttek Assange lejáratása, elfogatása és tervbe vett elítélése mellett, mivel köztudott, hogy kiszivárogtatott információk nélkül a világnak fogalma sem lenne kormányaik viselt dolgairól. (Patrick Cockburn: How Julian Assange's Private Life Helped Conceal the Real Triumph of WikiLeaks -- Without the access to the US secret cables, the world would have no insight into how their governments behave. The Independent/UK. July 2, 2012)

The cables obtained by WikiLeaks were published later that year in five newspapers – The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País – but the response to Assange himself was surprisingly mean-spirited and dismissive. Journalists seemed angry that their professional territory was being invaded by an Australian computer nerd who was doing their job. The British commentariat is notoriously club-like, conservative and hostile to those with different cultural and political norms. (Patrick Cockburn: How Julian Assange's Private Life Helped Conceal the Real Triumph of WikiLeaks -- Without the access to the US secret cables, the world would have no insight into how their governments behave. The Independent/UK. July 2, 2012)

In August 2010, Time Magazine's review of the 50 Best Websites of 2010 named The Daily Beast among the top five news and information sites. (The Onion at 16, The Guardian at 17, The Daily Beast at 18, National Geographic at 19, and WikiLeaks at 20)

Isn’t it amazing to see it (“Pussy Riot”) taken up by Amnesty International (AI), Avaaz, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) with such aggressiveness? AI and HRW neglected the important case of Julian Assange and the serious official U.S. campaign against whistleblowers and contributors of ”material aid” (undefined) to terrorists (see Diana Johnstone, “Pussy Riot and Amnesty International: The Decline of Political Protest,” Counterpunch, August 28, 2012). Would the NYT ever give such intensive and positive publicity to Americans interrupting church services to make a political point or carrying out illegal acts of protest against U.S. training-of-state-terrorists pro- grams at the School of Americas or nuclear weapons facilities? (Edward S. Herman:  New York Times: Great Paper. Great Propaganda Organ. October 17, 2012)

There were 20.5 million decisions to classify government secrets last year, and a report to the president found serious shortcomings in the process. (Pete Yost: 20.5M Decisions to Classify Documents. The Associated Press. 2007)

“Julian and I share a similar vision that it is not enough to talk about the problems – we need to figure out solutions, work on them, and try to inspire others to do it. I worked with him nearly every day for five months so we got quite well acquainted and it was very stimulating to talk with him and brainstorm. He’s not very easy to work with, to be honest. He’s peculiar – he works so much. I would leave him at midnight and wake up at 6, and he would still be sitting in the same position, not having had anything to drink, just working. He is a very dedicated person to the cult of transparency. It was not only Julian at WikiLeaks – there was always a team of people behind WikiLeaks who are making it possible. He and his organization managed to bring into the public debate a very necessary discussion that has been ongoing – the status of the freedom of information in our world. Bradley Manning managed to get into the discussion with his act, then when he was caught, it raised the necessity of whistleblowers. (…) It is a tremendous service that these people have given to our societies. Julian Assange is among them. He has had lots of controversy about his person, and I don’t want to go deeply into that. I want to see the message that he is delivering. Yesterday I watched him give a speech by Skype at an event for a company called Thoughtworks. He was so right on it. He wrote a book with three very other important people called Cyber Punks, which is a very important book to read.” (MP Birgitta Jonsdottir. June 2013) [The emergence of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and now Edward Snowden represents just the tip of the iceberg of a popular resistance that is challenging the U.S. government’s excesses in secrecy and surveillance, a movement that Iceland MP Birgitta Jonsdottir discusses with Dennis J. Bernstein. Truthout]

"Nothing so diminishes democracy as secrecy." (U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. 1967)

The 2005 Nobel prize in literature, Harold Pinter referred to "a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed". He asked why "the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities" of the Soviet Union were well known in the west while America's crimes were "superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged". The most enduring silence of the modern era covered the extinction and dispossession of countless human beings by a rampant US and its agents. "But you wouldn't know it," said Pinter. "It never happened. Even while it was happening it never happened." (John Pilger)

"Julian Assange did much for free speech. And he is now being victimised by the abusers of the concept." (Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone. Karlovy Vary international film festival. 2013) [In recent months Stone has thrown his weight behind WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, visiting the activist at his base at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and criticising the depiction of Assange in two upcoming Hollywood pictures.]

"For over a year now, the US Attorney General Eric Holder has been conducting a "secret" Grand Jury investigation into WikiLeaks. This neo-McCarthyist witch hunt against WikiLeaks may be Mr Holder’s defining legacy. Any student of American history knows that secret justice is no justice at all. Justice must be seen to be done. Legitimate authority arises out of the informed consent of the governed, not Eric Holder’s press secretary. Secret Grand Juries with secret indictments are apparently Eric Holder’s preferred method of dealing with publishers who hold his administration to account. Eric Holder has betrayed the legacy of Madison and Jefferson. He should drop the case or resign. Should he continue, however, the Obama administration may not — Democrats and Republicans alike believe in the right to tell the truth." (WikiLeaks founder and editor in chief Julian Assange. Published: March 1, 2012)

“Not for Pub -- We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect”. Fred Burton e-mail (ID 375123, dated January 26, 2011) (This e-mail was attributed to Burton, Stratfor's vice-president for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security who previously served as Deputy Chief of the Department of State's (DoS) counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS).

“Just told SkyNews concerns for US extradition. More and more likely.” Fred Burton e-mail (ID 373862 dated December 17, 2010) [Burton is Stratfor's vice-president for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security.]

An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think is powerless to preserve itself against the opponents it induces. When we look at an authoritarian conspiracy as a whole, we see a system of interacting organs, a beast with arteries and veins whose blood may be thickened and slowed until it falls, stupefied; unable to sufficiently comprehend and control the forces in its environment. Later we will see how new technology and insights into the psychological motivations of conspirators can give us practical methods for preventing or reducing important communication between authoritarian conspirators, foment strong resistance to authoritarian planning and create powerful incentives for more humane forms of governance. (Julian Assange: Conspiracy as Governance. December 3, 2006)

Introduction. To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not. We must understand the key generative structure of bad governance. [1]  We must develop a way of thinking about this structure that is strong enough to carry us through the mire of competing political moralities and into a position of clarity. Most importantly, we must use these insights to inspire within us and others a course of ennobling and effective action to replace the structures that lead to bad governance with something better. (Julian Assange: Conspiracy as Governance. December 2006) [1. Everytime we witness an act that we feel to be unjust and do not act, we become a party to injustice. Those who are repeatedly passive in the face of injustice soon find their character corroded into servility. Most witnessed acts of injustice are associated with bad governance, since when governance is good, unanswered injustice is rare. By the progressive diminution of a people’s character, the impact of reported, but unanswered injustice is far greater than it may initially seem. Modern communications states through their scale, homogeneity and excesses provide their populace with an unprecedented deluge of witnessed, but seemingly unanswerable injustices. Assange]

A vezető ausztrál napilap, The Australian, híradása szerint (az eltussolt kormányszintű törvénytelenségeket, suba alatt történő politikai-gazdasági visszaéléseket, nemzetközileg tiltott humanitás elleni vétségeket nyilvánosan leleplező) “Whistleblowing website, Wikileaks” fontos győzelmet aratott a hiteltársaságok felett, amelyek letiltották a munkásságát  támogató  milliós pénzadományok kezelését.  Az izlandi bíróság elítélte a politikai indíttatású “törvénytelen és önkényes” monetáris intézkedést, majd a pénzintézetek fellebbezéseit követően az ottani legfelső bíróság véglegesítette a döntését. A határozat kimondta, hogy az online fizető cég, Valitor (VISA helyi partnere, K. H.) törvénytelenül szakította meg az üzleti viszonyt a WikiLeaks adományait kezelő DataCellel, ami miatt a DataCell hivatalosan tiltakozott az Európai Bizottságnál, de eredménytelenül. Alan Jones, az Australian Associated Press munkatársa cikkében visszaidézi, hogy 2010-ben (mintegy központi vezényszóra, K. H.) számos nemzetközi pénzügyi intézet (az Európában közel monopolhelyzetet élvező VisaCard Europe és MasterCard  Europe hitelkártya-társaságokkal az élen, K.H.) beszüntette a WikiLeaksnek nyújtott szolgáltatásait. Ezzel súlyos anyagi kárt okoztak a nemzetközi non-profit szervezetnek, és majdnem lehetetlenné tették tényfeltáró és tájékoztató jellegű tevékenységük folytatását.(Kuliffay Hanna. 2013. április 29. Részletes beszámoló: Lapszemlék rovat 2013., 7. írás)

A new report reveals that an angry and frustrated Hillary Clinton once pondered obliterating Wikileaks’ Julian Assange with a drone strike. The shocking revelation comes as the Democratic presidential nominee and the party’s brain trust brace themselves for an “October Surprise” from Assange. Wikileaks has vowed to unleash a torrent of emails expected to be highly damaging to the former secretary of state -- and her bid for the White House. The True Pundit says the U.S. government was tasked with neutralizing Assange. And Clinton was the point person. “Can’t we just drone this guy?” she pondered during one high-charged meeting, State Department sources reportedly told True Pundit. According to the website, others in the room laughed. But not Clinton, who called the Assange a “soft target. (Hillary Clinton suggested taking out Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with drone: Report. Toronto Sun. October 3, 2016)

Representatives for WikiLeaks — who claim that the US Justice Department had not discussed the matters with them despite requests — remain steadfast in their belief that there is "no legitimate basis" for the Justice Department to treat their organization differently than other news outlets, The Post reported. "The fact of the matter is — however frustrating it might be to whoever looks bad when information is published — WikiLeaks is a publisher, and they are publishing truthful information that is in the public's interest. Democracy thrives because there are independent journalists reporting on what it is that the government is doing." Pollack also added that he wished the new administration would be "more respectful, not less respectful of the First Amendment than the prior administration was." said Barry J. Pollack, Assange's attorney. April 21, 2017  (WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange may face criminal charges in the US)

In the years I have known Julian Assange, I have watched a vituperative personal campaign try to stop him and WikiLeaks. It has been a frontal assault on whistleblowing, on free speech and free journalism, all of which are now under sustained attack from governments and corporate internet controllers. The first serious attacks on Assange came from the Guardian which, like a spurned lover, turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks’ disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. Assange was portrayed as “callous” and a “damaged personality”. It was as if a rampant jealousy could not accept that his remarkable achievements stood in marked contrast to that of his detractors in the “mainstream” media. It is like watching the guardians of the status quo, regardless of age, struggling to silence real dissent and prevent the emergence of the new and hopeful. Today, Assange remains a political refugee from the war-making dark state of which Donald Trump is a caricature and Hillary Clinton the embodiment. His resilience and courage are astonishing. Unlike him, his tormentors are cowards. (John Pilger: Clinton, Assange and the War on Truth. counterpunch.org. October 20, 2017)

Julian Assange has been condemned by Sweden, Britain, the US and now Ecuador to solitary confinement with no access to daylight or to medical care. Without a trial, without a sentence, and on the basis of mere allegations, most of which have already turned out to be trumped up and false. This violates so many national and international laws it’s futile to try and count or name them. (…) What’s perhaps the saddest part of all this is that people like Chelsea Manning, Kim Dotcom, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are among the smartest people our world has to offer. We should be cherishing the combination of intelligence, courage and integrity they display at their own risk and peril, but instead we let them be harassed by our governments because they unveil inconvenient truths about them. And pretty soon there will be nobody left to tell these truths, or tell any truth at all. Dark days. By allowing the smartest and bravest amongst us, who are experts in new technologies, to be silenced, we are allowing these technologies to be used against us. We’re not far removed from being extras in our own lives, with all significant decisions taken not by us, but for us. America’s Founding Fathers are turning in their graves as we speak. They would have understood the importance of protecting Julian Assange. To say that we are all Julian Assange is not just a slogan. (Raúl Ilargi Meijer: I Am Julian Assange. The Automatic Earth. May 24, 2018)

With the creation of WikiLeaks, Assange liberated the First Amendment from this archaic system of national governance. Significance of this invention is that it decentralized the function of free press, extending the First Amendment protection that has been exclusively preserved for the profession of journalists to ordinary people. Now, through this innovative anonymous submission system, anyone in the world with Internet connection can communicate with people around the globe about the fraud and wrongdoing of any governments or institutions. Without fear of retaliation, people can now transcend boundaries of nation-state to form association with one another and redress their grievances. With scientific journalism at its core, this new media of the Internet replaced the source of legitimacy from the profession’s creed of objectivity to the actual documents themselves that are authenticated. Access to full achieves in a searchable format empowered everyday people all over the world. They can now engage in their own history as it is happening and use information to create social change. The U.S. government under Obama began a war against the First Amendment, trying to stop this WikiLeaks’ mission to bring free speech to the world. (…) WikiLeaks enabled the true function of the First Amendment. As a countenance of democracy, this revolutionary journalism protects people against suppression of speech by allowing all voices including views that are unpopular and marginalized. (Nozomi Hayase: Why Democracy Needs Solidarity for Julian Assange's Freedom. Commondreams. August 25, 2018)

'Covert' Syrian action: According to the latest leaked emails, Mrs Clinton told a Goldman Sachs conference she would like to intervene secretly in Syria. She made the remark in answer to a question from Lloyd Blankfein, the bank's chief executive, in 2013 months after she left office as secretary of state. "My view was you intervene as covertly as is possible for Americans to intervene," she told employees of the bank in South Carolina, which had paid her about $225,000 to give a speech. Mrs Clinton - who is accused of being a war hawk by liberal critics - added: "We used to be much better at this than we are now. Now, you know, everybody can't help themselves. "They have to go out and tell their friendly reporters and somebody else: Look what we're doing and I want credit for it." (18 revelations from Wikileaks' hacked Clinton emails. BBC News. October 27, 2018)

“The news that criminal charges have apparently been filed against Mr. Assange is even more troubling than the haphazard manner in which that information has been revealed. The government bringing criminal charges against someone for publishing truthful information is a dangerous path for a democracy to take.” (Barry Pollack, a U.S.-based lawyer representing Assange, took issue both with the disclosure of the charges, as well as its longer-term implications. November 16, 2018)

In 2011 I was among 144 journalists from 39 countries to sign a statement of support for Wikileaks and Julian Assange. I continue to strongly support the journalistic role of Wikileaks and Assange! (Jon Shafer, news correspondent, government, political and investigative reporter, editorial page editor. December 18, 2018)

"Any prosecution of Mr. Assange for WikiLeaks' publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations. Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating U.S. secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public's interest." (Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. November 16, 2018)

"Whether you like Assange or hate him, the theories used in a potential Espionage Act prosecution would threaten countless reporters at the New York Times, Washington Post, and the many other news outlets that report on government secrets all the time. While everyone will have to wait and see what the charges detail, it’s quite possible core First Amendment principles will be at stake in this case." (Trevor Timm, FTPF's executive director. November 16, 2018)

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have developed from a small publishing project to a global player in the media landscape within just over ten years. It is also certain that over the years WikiLeaks has been involved in a power complex that usually isn't known to mess around: the U. S. Department of Justice, the State Department, secret services such as the CIA and NSA, as well as private security and strategic companies of the military industrial complex had to accept the embarrassing publications of internal documents and e-mails. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks' close relationship with the Trump Administration isn’t visibly bearing any fruit, as Trump's CIA director Mike Pompeo recently defined WikiLeaks as a "Hostile Foreign Intelligence Service1 " - i. e. as a foreign/enemy intelligence service - quite a novelty for a media project specializing in publications. In mid-December in 2017, however, a British Tribunal defined WikiLeaks as a "Media Organization2 ", which will undoubtedly work in favor for his defense. Julian Assange can thus defend himself against the threat of extradition to the U.S. on the grounds of Press Freedom. (From the Statement on the Invitation of Julian Assange at the Elevate Festival 2018)

*

In a citizenship interview at the embassy in London, Mr. Assange explained that he wanted to become a citizen because “I’ve been welcomed here for the last five years and I feel practically Ecuadorean,” according to a written summary of the meeting. Within 10 days, Mr. Assange was granted citizenship, according to documents released by Paola Vintimilla, an Ecuadorean lawmaker who opposes Mr. Assange’s presence in the embassy. But a subsequent effort to grant Mr. Assange diplomatic status, and the immunity that would come with it, was rejected by the British government. (Manafort Tried to Broker Deal With Ecuador to Hand Assange Over to U.S.  The New York Times.  December 3, 2018)

* *

When we consider the fatalities of other journalists over the years, it is amazing that Assange has survived as long as he has. Danny Casolaro, Michael Hastings, and Gary Webb were all killed by the so-called Deep State. We need to protect Assange because he represents the freedom of information of the 5th Estate. If he goes, we all go. (Kat Swift, political activist. December 18, 2018)

*

Mr. Assange had been pursued by Swedish prosecutors on a rape accusation from 2010. The Ecuadorean Embassy in London granted him asylum in the summer of 2012. That was under Mr. Moreno’s predecessor, Rafael Correa, whose political identity was based partly on his antagonism toward the United States. Swedish authorities abandoned their attempt to extradite him last year, which invalidated the warrant for his arrest. (Manafort Tried to Broker Deal With Ecuador to Hand Assange Over to U.S.  The New York Times. December 3, 2018)

NYT Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Swedish prosecutors had pursued Julian Assange on a rape charge. Although he was investigated over a rape accusation, he was never charged. December 3, 2018

*  *

WikiLeaks also unveiled hundreds of thousands of U.S. State Department cables that showed more clearly than ever how our secretive government rules its empire with little to no input from the American people. Among many other things, the cables revealed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered diplomats to spy on French, British, Russian and Chinese delegations at the U.N. Security Council. (…) The Democratic National Committee’s emails gave us proof concerning just how rigged the Democratic primaries really are. They proved the media was in bed with Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They even showed that Obama’s entire first-term cabinet was selected by Citibank. Yes, Citibank. (…) In 2017 WikiLeaks posted a trove of CIA documents called “Vault 7.” It detailed their capabilities, including remotely taking over cars, smart TVs, web browsers and smartphones. At first WikiLeaks and Assange were celebrated for their amazing work. In 2011 even Amnesty International hailed WikiLeaks as one of the Arab Spring catalysts. The Guardian said: “The year 2010 may well be remembered as a watershed year when activists and journalists used new technology to speak truth to power and, in so doing, pushed for greater respect for human rights… It is also the year when repressive governments faced the real possibility that their days were numbered.” [18 ways Julian Assange changed the world (by Lee Camp). June 3, 2019]

“The Pentagon Papers were stolen property, weren’t they? They were stolen from the Pentagon and given to the New York Times and the Washington Post. Nobody went to jail at the New York Times and the Washington Post. Once media outlets obtain leaked information, they can publish it for the purpose of informing people, and the same applies to Assange. You can’t put Assange in a different position. We may not like what he communicates, but he was a media facility. He was putting that information out. Every newspaper [and] station grabbed it and published it.” (‘He did nothing wrong’: Giuliani defends Assange’s decision to publish Hillary campaign emails. Fox & Friends. January 1, 2019)

The US government documents published by WikiLeaks are about the real workings of power. Take the Hillary Clinton emails published in 2016: much of the media attention has plugged into conspiracy theories about Russian involvement or, until the recent publication of the Mueller Report, the possible complicity of the Trump election campaign with the Russians. Many Democrats and anti-Trump journalists managed to persuade themselves that Assange had helped lose Hillary Clinton the election, though a glance at a history of the campaign showed that she was quite capable of doing this all by herself by not campaigning in toss-up states. (Patrick Cockburn: Calling Assange a Narcissist Misses the Point. April 15, 2019)

(WikiLeaks founder Julian) Assange's arrest and possible extradition to the United States is a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech. The fact that the Trump administration has chosen... to ignore how important it is that we uphold our freedoms, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and go after [Assange], it has a very chilling effect on both journalists and publishers. And you can look to those in traditional media and also those in new media, and also every one of us as Americans. It was a kind of a warning call, saying, 'Look what happened to this guy. It could happen to you.' It could happen to any one of us. (Jake Johnson: Tulsi Gabbard Says She Would Pardon Snowden and Drop All US Charges Against Assange If Elected President in 2020. The Hawaii congresswoman said Assange's possible extradition to the U.S. poses a "great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech." Commondreams. May 15, 2019)

Chelsea Manning’s most famous leak is arguably also WikiLeaks’ most famous leak, so it’ll top this list: 1) That would be the notorious Collateral Murder video, showing U.S. air crew gunning down unarmed Iraqi civilians with an enthusiasm that couldn’t be matched by an eight-year-old winning a five-foot-tall stuffed animal at the county fair. They murdered between 12 and 18 innocent people, two of them Reuters journalists. Zero people have been arrested for the collateral murders. Yet Julian Assange has been arrested for revealing them. 2) WikiLeaks brought us the Guantanamo Bay “Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures”—showing that many of the prisoners held on the U.S. military detention facility were completely innocent, and that some were hidden from Red Cross officials. (…) None of the soldiers torturing innocent people at Gitmo have been arrested for it. Yet Julian Assange has been arrested for revealing it. 3) … Many people believe WikiLeaks has unveiled only crimes of the American government, but that’s completely false. The U.S. corporate media doesn’t want average Americans to understand that WikiLeaks has upped the level of transparency around the world. 4–9) WikiLeaks posted videos of Tibetan dissidents in China fighting back, videos which were not allowed to be viewed in China. They revealed the Peru oil scandal, and that Russia was spying on its citizens’ cell phones, and the Minton Report on toxic dumping in Africa, and the Syria Files—showing the inner workings of the Syrian government. And WikiLeaks displayed to the global audience a secret Australian supreme court gag order that stopped the Australian press from reporting on a huge bribery scandal that involved the central bank and international leaders. Assange is hated by governments around the world. As much as they may like transparency, when it comes to other countries (specifically the United States), they don’t want their own particular pile of s**t on full display. (…) 10) Let’s not forget the Iraq War logs—hundreds of thousands of documents relating to America’s illegal invasion of Iraq, which we called a “war,” but I think a war needs to have two sides. Iraq’s elite Republican Guard turned out to be three guys and a donkey… and the donkey didn’t even have good aim. So far as I can tell, no one committing the war crimes evidenced in the Iraq War logs has been locked up for them. Yet Julian Assange has for revealing them. (18 ways Julian Assange changed the world. From video by Lee Camp.  May 2019)

Julian Assange reportedly too sick to even appear by video at his own court hearings. UN Special Rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has investigated the treatment of Assange over the past nine years and has determined that the journalist has been the “victim of brutal psychological torture.” UN investigator Melzer concluded, “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonize, and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.” (Ron Paul: Hey Trump: Remember Wikileaks?  June 3, 2019)

Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote last week that, “the whole purpose of the First Amendment… is to promote and provoke open, wide, robust political debate about the policies of the government.” We need to understand that it is our First Amendment that is on trial right there along with Assange. The Obama Administration – no defenders of civil liberties – wanted to prosecute Assange but determined that his “crime” was the same kind of journalism that the US mainstream media engages in every day. Let’s hope President Trump recovers from his amnesia – on the campaign trail he praised Wikileaks more than 100 times but now claims to know nothing about them – and orders his Attorney General to stand down. Assange deserves our gratitude, not a lifetime in prison.  (Ron Paul: Hey Trump: Remember Wikileaks?  June 3, 2019)

Britain's Home Secretary has revealed he has signed a request for the extradition of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange to the US, where he is accused of violating the Espionage Act. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today program, Sajid Javid said that he signed and certified the papers on Wednesday, with the order going before the UK courts on Friday. (…) The US justice department has filed 17 new charges against the Australian journalist. In May, he was additionally charged with one count of conspiring with Chelsea Manning, the former intelligence analyst and whistleblower, to gain access to the US Pentagon network. (British Home Secretary signs extradition order to send Julian Assange to US. June 13, 2019) [Assange is currently serving a prison sentence in the UK for jumping bail. The 47 year-old was too ill to appear last month at the latest hearing at Westminster magistrates court in relation to the US request.]

“He ( Julian Assange) is rightly behind bars. There’s an extradition request from the US that is before the courts tomorrow but yesterday I signed the extradition order and certified it and that will be going in front of the courts tomorrow.” (Sajid Javid Britain's Home Secretary. June 13, 2019)

“The use of the Espionage Act to prosecute Assange is an attack on the First Amendment. … It stands to reason that an Administration that considers the press an ‘enemy of the people’ would launch this attack. In attacking the media, it is attacking the public.” (Masha Gessen: Charging Julian Assange under the espionage act is an attack on the first amendment. The New Yorker.  May 24, 2019)

Often forgotten is that the documents the Russians allegedly gave WikiLeaks revealed embarrassing evidence of journalistic coordination with the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton. For example, CNN allowed the DNC to help draft questions for Trump. CNBC’s John Harwood asked the Clinton campaign manager what questions he should ask candidate Jeb Bush in an interview in 2015. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank used the DNC as a source for an anti-Trump article. DNC interim chair Donna Brazile, whom CNN employed as a contributor, fed the Clinton campaign questions Hillary Clinton would receive in a debate with Bernie Sanders. Politico’s Kenneth Vogel sent a copy of a story to the DNC before he sent it to his editors. The DNC leaked negative information to the Wall Street Journal to help Clinton win the primary. CNN contributor Maria Cardona had the DNC screen an op-ed she wrote blasting Sanders fans. The Russia hoax is, in part, the media’s revenge for this embarrassment. (Adam Mill: Court Strikes Down Effort To Punish Trump For WikiLeaks Release Of DNC Emails A Bill Clinton-appointed judge dismissed a case that, at its core, was a private effort to punish and deter free speech because it embarrassed the left. Adam Mill: Court Strikes Down Effort to Punish Trump for WikiLeaks Release Of DNC Emails A Bill Clinton-appointed judge dismissed a case that, at its core, was a private effort to punish and deter free speech because it embarrassed the left. August 1, 2019) [Adam Mill is a pen name]

“Journalists are allowed to request documents that have been stolen and to publish those documents.” (Judge John G. Koeltl.  July 30, 2019)

On cue, HM Belmarsh Prison’s high security regime has so far proved crippling for Assange’s hopes of mounting a legal defence. It is now public knowledge that government officials at Belmarsh have imposed restrictions which effectively deny Assange sufficient legal visits, deny him the ability to speak to his US lawyers, deny him access to and possession of legal documents, and deny him the basic means through which to prepare for his legal defence, namely, a laptop computer. (…)  It becomes clear, therefore, that Assange is being denied prisoner rights regarding access to justice.  The result of these restrictions on Assange is that he cannot effectively participate in the legal proceedings against him.  Belmarsh’s current restrictions appear to undermine all of his attempts to access each and every avenue of justice, as well as the means required to participate in his legal defence since the time he entered the prison. (…) In Assange’s case it means his legal team is forced to waste time and resources attempting to gain legal access to justice, including possibly taking legal action against Belmarsh and the British government. (Nina Cross: Julian Assange: Deprivation of Justice and Double Standards in Belmarsh Prison. August 30, 2019)

Judge Deborah Taylor sent Assange to category A Belmarsh prison for a bail-skipping offense, even though he’d demonstrated that he had good reason to skip bail. It is difficult not to conclude that the category A assignment was done so that he would be weak and vulnerable. In essence, Assange was sent to Belmarsh for 50 weeks for failing to turn up at a police station. There was no ongoing court case; he had no prior offenses; there were no charges; the Swedish investigation had been dropped. So, skipping police bail was all the British government had. It should also be pointed out that Judge Taylor made a series of mistakes during the sentencing on 1st May, referring to rape charges in Sweden, which Assange corrected and which she then acknowledged were wrong. This indicates that Judge Taylor went into court at least uninformed, set in her mind that Assange had somewhere, somehow been charged with rape. This would seem to explain some of the reasoning behind Judge Taylor’s cruel sentencing, described by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention as ‘disproportionate’ but also as furthering the arbitrary deprivation of Assange’s liberty. (Nina Cross: Julian Assange: Deprivation of Justice and Double Standards in Belmarsh Prison. August 30, 2019)  [What’s more, it has been pointed out how several thousand people in the UK skip bail each year and are in no way subject to such harsh punishment. Clearly, Judge Taylor had used narratives provided by the state in order to send Assange to a category A penitentiary, even though these narratives have been thoroughly debunked. (Cross)]

“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 danger Julian Assange faces can easily spread to the present and past editors of the Guardian, the New York Times, Der Spiegel, El Pais in Spain, the Sydney Morning Herald, and many other newspapers and media outlets that published the WikiLeaks revelations about the lies and crimes of our governments. By defending Julian Assange we defend our most sacred rights. Speak up now or wake up one morning to the silence of a new kind of tyranny.” (Journalist John Pilger.  September 2, 2019) [Assange is currently serving a 50 week sentence in Belmarsh Prison for skipping a bail hearing in 2012. US authorities are seeking his extradition for his role in publishing classified documents, accusing him of espionage.]

But we are not evolved and this is not Gotham City and average Americans don’t root for the truth. Many Americans cheer for Assange’s imprisonment. They believe the corporate plutocratic talking points and yearn for the days when we no longer have to hear about our country’s crimes against humanity or our bankers’ crimes against the economy. Subconsciously they must believe that a life in which we’re tirelessly exploited by rich villains and know all about it thanks to the exhaustive efforts of an eccentric Australian is worse than one in which we’re tirelessly exploited by rich villains yet know nothing about it. “Ignorance is bliss” is the meditative mantra of the United States of America.  [18 ways Julian Assange changed the world (by Lee Camp). June 3, 2019]

Julian Assange sounded like a shell of the man he once was during a Christmas Eve phone call, British journalist Vaughan Smith told RT, noting the WikiLeaks founder had trouble speaking and appeared to be drugged.  Assange was allowed to make just a single call from the maximum security Belmarsh prison in southeast London for the Christmas holiday, hoping for a reminder of the world beyond his drab confines of steel and concrete. (‘I’m slowly dying here’: ‘Sedated’ Assange tells friend during Christmas Eve call from UK prison as health concerns mount. December 31, 2019)

“In the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed… And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.” (Nils Melzer, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. November 23, 2019)

"The U.S. government's unrelenting pursuit of Julian Assange for having published disclosed documents that included possible war crimes committed by the U.S. military is nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression. The potential chilling effect on journalists and others who expose official wrongdoing by publishing information disclosed to them by credible sources could have a profound impact on the public's right to know what their government is up to. All charges against Assange for such activities must be dropped." (Massimo Moratti, Amnesty International's deputy Europe director. February 21, 2020)

"The broad and vague nature of the allegations against Julian Assange, and of the offenses listed in the indictment, are troubling as many of them concern activities at the core of investigative journalism in Europe and beyond. Consequently, allowing Julian Assange's extradition on this basis would have a chilling effect on media freedom, and could ultimately hamper the press in performing its task as purveyor of information and public watchdog in democratic societies. (Dunja Mijatovic, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. February 21, 2020)

"Julian Assange could face detention conditions in the U.S. that amount to torture and other ill-treatment, including prolonged solitary confinement. The risk of an unfair trial is very real given the targeted public campaign against him undertaken by U.S. officials at the highest levels, which has severely undermined his right to be presumed innocent." (Massimo Moratti, Amnesty International's deputy Europe director. February 21, 2020)

“When Julian Assange steps into Woolwich Crown Court on Feb. 24, true journalism will be the only crime on trial.” (John Pilger. February 21, 2020)

On Thursday, journalists worldwide came together in support of Assange’s freedom. A joint statement released by 1200 colleagues from 9 countries called for the immediate release of Assange and criticized the US government’s move toward criminalization of journalism: All journalists use information from confidential sources so the legal actions are an extremely dangerous precedent that threatens the world’s journalists and news media. The signatories believe Assange’s imprisonment and the court proceedings are a gross miscarriage of Justice.  Nozomi Hayase: Assange’s US Extradition Hearing Opens Monday: Fight for the Free Press Is Now On. Common Dreams. February 21, 2020)

“We urge our fellow journalists to inform the public accurately about this abuse of fundamental rights. We urge all journalists to speak up in defense of Julian Assange at this critical time. Dangerous times call for fearless journalism.” (Over 1,000 journalists from across the world unite in defence of Julian Assange. Morning Star. UK. February 20, 2020)

WikiLeaks‘ first major release came on April 5, 2010 with the publication of the Collateral Murder video, providing evidence of a U.S. war crime in Iraq. It was leaked by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who was arrested and charged on May 26, 2010 under the Espionage Act.  With Manning in jail, WikiLeaks published more of her leaked material. The Afghan War Diaries were released on July 25, 2010, which revealed the suppression of civilian casualty figures, the existence of an elite U.S.-led death squad and the covert role of Pakistan in the conflict. Assange partnered with The New York Times, Der Spiegel and The Guardian in publishing the Afghan leaks. (Joe Lauria: Julian Assange Wins 2020 Gary Webb Freedom of the Press Award. Consortium News. February 10, 2020)

His role as a journalist was affirmed by the numerous awards Julian Assange has won, including The Economist’s New Media Award (2008); Amnesty International’s UK Media Award (2009); the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence award (2010); the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (2011, which Parry won in 2017); the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011, Australia’s Pulitzer Prize); the Voltaire Award for Free Speech (2011); the International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists (2011); the Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (2011); the Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts (2013) and the Galizia Prize for Journalists, Whistleblowers & Defenders of the Right to Information (2019). In 2010, the New York Daily News listed WikiLeaks first among websites “that could totally change the news.” No less of an authority than the founder of this site, one of America’s best investigative reporters, said, “Journalists are all Julian Assange.” (Imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange has been awarded Consortium News’ 2020 Gary Webb Freedom of the Press Award for courage in the face of an unprecedented attack on press freedom. (Joe Lauria: Julian Assange Wins 2020 Gary Webb Freedom of the Press Award. Consortium News. February 10, 2020)

Julian Assange created a new form of journalism that enabled a free press to perform its true function—the role of watchdog for democracy. WikiLeaks opened a possibility for ordinary people to use information as power to participate in unfolding events, thwart authoritarian planning, so as to never repeat the tragic hijack of history that led to atrocities in distant lands—killing tens of thousands of innocent people. (Nozomi Hayase: Assange's Extradition: An Escalation of the US War on Terror. March 21, 2020)

Now, with the prosecution of Assange, the US Empire tries to crush conscience once and for all, destroying the last vestiges of democracy. Assange has been held inside London’s maximum-security prison for over 500 days, alongside murderers and terrorists, for exposing the war crimes and human rights abuses of the US government (and their allies). He now faces the risk of extradition to the US, where he could receive no fair trial. If convicted, Assange would be sentenced to up to 175 years in prison and be subjected to Special Administrative Measures (SAMs), known to be the Darkest Corner of the U.S. federal prison system. These harsh conditions not only gag a prisoner but also their lawyers. He would be placed into complete isolation, cut off from the outside world. Possibly for a lifetime. (Nozomi Hayase: Assange’s US Extradition Hearing Resumes Monday; Public Needs to Step up to Fight this War on Journalism. Commondreams.  September 4, 2020)

Recognizing the dire threat to media freedom everywhere, Human Rights organizations like Amnesty International have come out strongly to oppose this political prosecution of Assange. Journalists around the world have come together in defense of Assange’s freedom. They have criticized the US government’s dangerous move toward criminalizing basic journalistic activity. Over 200 doctors have spoken out against ongoing torture and medical neglect of the Australian journalist and called on the UK Government to end extradition proceedings against Assange. An array of lawyers and legal academics have expressed their concerns about the many violations of Assange’s fundamental human, civil and political rights, demanding his immediate release. Only through our courage to truly confront injustice and act in solidarity with truthtellers, can we end this illegal prosecution of free press and reclaim our own democracy. (Nozomi Hayase: Assange’s US Extradition Hearing Resumes Monday; Public Needs to Step up to Fight this War on Journalism. Commondreams.  September 4, 2020)

“This is an attack on journalism. If he is extradited to the U.S. for publishing inconvenient truth about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then it will set a precedent, and any British journalist or publisher could also be extradited in the future.” (Stella Moris, Assange’s partner and his children’s mother, is a South African-born lawyer. CNBC. September 8, 2020)

In virtually each year since 1976, the Community Church of Boston has presented the Sacco-Vanzetti Memorial Award for Contributions to Social Justice to outstanding activists in the peoples’ struggles. (Brett Wilkins: Julian Assange presented with the 2021 Sacco-Vanzetti Social Justice Award. June 2, 2021)

“This disingenuous appeal should be dismissed by the court and President Biden should take the opportunity to drop these politically motivated charges which have put media freedom and freedom of expression in the dock. President Obama opened the investigation into Julian Assange. President Trump brought the charges against him. It is now time for President Biden to do the right thing and help end this farcical prosecution which should never have been brought in the first place. (Nils Muižnieks, Amnesty International’s Europa Director. Amnesty International Press Release. August 10, 2021)

This new appeal is “the latest move by the U.S. government to try to game the British legal system. The U.S. government's handling of the case exposes the underlying nature of the prosecution against Julian: aggressive tactics and subverting the rules so that Julian's ability to defend himself is obstructed and undermined while he remains in prison for years and years, unconvicted, and held on spurious charges. The “process” is the punishment... The big picture is that any assurance short of dropping the case entirely is entirely worthless. Julian is being punished for doing his job. He published true information that the public had the right to know and which revealed serious wrongdoing on the part of states and their agents.” (Stella Moris, Assange's partner and mother of two of his children. August 10, 2011) [If found guilty, Assange faces up to 175 years in prison.]

“This attempt by the US government to get the court to reverse its decision not to allow Julian Assange’s extradition on the basis of new diplomatic assurances is a blatant legal sleight of hand. Given that the US government has reserved the right to keep Julian Assange in a maximum security facility and subject him to Special Administrative Measures, these assurances are inherently unreliable. (Nils Muižnieks, Amnesty International’s Europa Director. Amnesty International Press Release. August 10, 2021)

"It is a damning indictment that nearly 20 years on, virtually no one responsible for alleged US war crimes committed in the course of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars has been held accountable, let alone prosecuted, and yet a publisher who exposed such crimes is potentially facing a lifetime in jail. The US government's unrelenting pursuit of Julian Assange makes it clear that this prosecution is a punitive measure, but the case involves concerns which go far beyond the fate of one man and put media freedom and freedom of expression in peril." (Amnesty International's Secretary-General Agnes Callamard. October 27, 2021. [Callamard called on US authorities to drop the charges against him and the UK authorities not to extradite him but release him immediately.]

The US government's indictment poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the US and abroad. Much of the conduct it describes is conduct that journalists and publishers engage in on a daily basis. Were his extradition to be allowed it would set a precedent that would effectively criminalise common journalistic practices. The potentially chilling effect on journalists and others who expose official wrongdoing by publishing information disclosed to them by credible sources would have a profound effect on the public's right to know what our governments are up to. Indeed, at a time when press freedom is under unrelenting assault around the world, the silencing of Julian Assange would be widely felt, affecting journalists either directly or indirectly by instilling the fear of prosecution. By charging with espionage someone who has no non-disclosure obligation, is not a US citizen and is not in the US, the US government is behaving as if they have jurisdiction all over the world to pursue any person who receives and publishes information of government wrongdoing. (Stefan Simanowitz: Free Julian Assange Now. October 27, 2021)

The new ruling marks in a win for the U.S. government—which has charged Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act related to his publication of classified documents exposing American war crimes. Critics like Reporters Without Borders (RSF), however, say the ruling represents a far-reaching and alarming attack on journalistic freedoms. "We condemn today's decision, which will prove historic for all the wrong reasons," said RSF Secretary-General Christophe Deloire. "We fully believe that Julian Assange has been targeted for his contributions to journalism, and we defend this case because of its dangerous implications for the future of journalism and press freedom around the world," Deloire said. He also called for "a stop to this more than decade-long persecution once and for all." (Andrea Germanos: Rights Groups Warn Extradition of Assange Would Have 'Dangerous Implications for Future of Journalism'. December 10, 2021)

"The ruling represents a bleak moment for journalists and journalism around the world, on the very day when we should be celebrating the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to two journalists and urging states to uphold the commitments to media freedom they have just reaffirmed at the U.S.-led Summit for Democracy. The U.S. government's indictment poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad. The U.S. should truly lead by example and close this case now before further damage is done. Julian Assange should be immediately released, and steps taken to ensure no journalist, publisher, or source can ever be targeted in this way again." (RSF director of international campaigns Rebecca Vincent. December 11, 2021)

When Assange was first charged, he was not charged with espionage by the United States. Rather, he was charged with a single count of "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion." This charge alleged that he conspired with Manning to decrypt a password hash for the US Department of Defense computer system. But as Melzer points out, "Manning already had full 'top secret' access privileges to the system and all the documents she leaked to Assange. So, even according to the US government, the point of the alleged attempt to decode the password hash was not to gain unauthorized access to classified information ('hacking'), but to help Manning to cover her tracks inside the system by logging in with a different identity ('source protection'). In any case, the alleged attempt undisputedly remained unsuccessful and did not result in any harm whatsoever." (Chris Hedges: Julian Assange, PEN America, and Ruling Class Acquiescence. December 27, 2021)

Nossel's repetition of the lie that Assange endangered lives by not redacting documents was obliterated during the trial of Manning, several sessions of which I attended at Fort Meade in Maryland with Cornel West. During the court proceedings in July 2013 Brigadier General Robert Carr, a senior counterintelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the US Department of Defense, told the court that the task force did not uncover a single case of someone who lost their lives due to the publication of the classified documents by WikiLeaks. As for Nossel's claim that "in the beginning they worked with journalists to be careful about redacting names of individuals" she should be aware that the decryption key to the unredacted State Department documents was not released by Assange, but Luke Harding and David Leigh from The Guardian in their book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy. When the ruling class peddles lies there is no cost for parroting them back to the public. The cost is paid by those who tell the truth. (Chris Hedges: Julian Assange, PEN America, and Ruling Class Acquiescence. December 27, 2021)

"IPI continues to strongly oppose Assange's prosecution under the Espionage Act on grounds that it poses a critical and unacceptable threat to the media's right to gather and publish information that is in the public interest," said the group, which is based in Vienna, Austria. The use of this 1917 law, which criminalizes the disclosure of classified information, sets a dangerous precedent for punishing journalists in relation to core newsgathering and reporting activities. It has the potential to cast a chilling effect over national security reporting in the U.S. and around the world." (International Press Institute (IPI) reiterated its call for the U.S. government to immediately drop its prosecution of Assange. Vienna, Austria. March 15, 2022)

”Heartbreaking. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing & soul-crushing. A man who did the job any & every journalist should aspire to do is being suffocated to death slowly. With the full support of the highest court of the country that invented... liberalism.” (Yanis Varoufakis, Greek politician, economics professor. March 15, 2022)

“The Espionage Act has not been used to fight espionage. It’s being used against whistleblowers and Julian Assange to keep the public ignorant of [the government’s] wrongdoings and illegalities in order to maintain its hold on authority, all in the name of national security.” (Lawyer Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA employee who was imprisoned under the Espionage Act for revealing defence secrets to the journalist James Risen. 2023)

Joe Biden has been accused of hypocrisy for demanding the release of journalists detained around the world while the US president continues seeking the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from Britain to face American espionage charges. (…) The tribunal heard that the charges against Assange were an “ongoing attack on press freedom” because the WikiLeaks founder was not a spy but a journalist and publisher protected by free speech laws. The tribunal co-chairperson Srecko Horvat – a founder of the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 whose father was a political prisoner in the former Yugoslavia – quoted Biden from the 2020 presidential campaign calling for the release of imprisoned journalists across the world by quoting late president Thomas Jefferson’s dictum that “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost”. “President Biden is normally advocating freedom of press, but at the same time continuing the persecution of Julian Assange,” Horvat said. (Chris McGrea: Biden accused of hypocrisy as he seeks extradition of Julian Assange. The Guardian. January 20, 2023)

“If Julian Assange ends up in a maximum security prison in the United States for the rest of his life, every other journalist around the world will think, ‘Should I really report this information I’ve been given? Should I really speak out about this denial of human rights or miscarriage of justice in any country?’” (Britain’s former Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn. January 20, 2023)

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is currently fighting his extradition from the UK to the US. Australian PM Anthony Albanese said "nothing is served" by Assange's ongoing incarceration. (….)"Enough is enough, this needs to be brought to a conclusion, it needs to be worked through," said Albanese while pointing out his concern for the Australian citizen's mental health. Albanese has been advocating for Assange's release. Assange would face about 175 years in a maximum security prison if extradited to the US. Albanese said that Australians were failing to understand the reason for freeing Manning, who leaked the documents to Assange, while the Wikileaks founder remains in prison. He explained that while he had "issues" with what Assange did, "nothing is served" by his ongoing time in prison. (Australia PM frustrated over detention of Julian Assange. Deutsche Welle. May 5, 2023)

“It is an embarrassment that a journalist who denounced trickery by one state against another is arrested, condemned to die in jail, and we do nothing to free him. It’s a crazy thing. We talk about freedom of expression; the guy is in prison because he denounced wrongdoing. And the press doesn’t do anything in defense of this journalist. I can’t understand it.  I think there must be a movement of world press in his defense. Not in regard to his person, but to defend the right to denounce. The guy didn’t denounce anything vulgar. He denounced that a state was spying on others, and that became a crime against the journalist. The press, which defends freedom of the press, does nothing to free this citizen. It’s sad, but it’s true.” (In London, Brazil’s Lula calls for efforts to free Assange. Associated Press. May 7, 2023) [After attending the coronation of King Charles III in London, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva denounced the lack of concerted efforts to free WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.]

A témában lásd még: Hidegvérrel - Julian Assange és a sajtószabadság ellen; Lapszemlék, kommentárok 2010 II. félév  12 ; Lapszemlék-kommentárok 2011 I. félév  15. és 14. írás

VISSZA  az EMPIRIA Magazin Jelenkor rovatának címjegyzékéhez

VISSZA  az EMPIRIA Magazin nyitólapjára