Julian Assange

"I call on U.K. and Sweden to do the right thing and restore my liberty. These two states signed treaties to recognize the U.N. and its human rights mechanisms,” Assange said in a press release sent by his legal team Sunday, febr 5 2017.
“Their governments accepted the jurisdiction of the UNWGAD in my case — the world's peak legal body for cases of arbitrary detention. At no time in the 16 month process did they withdraw. They lost, appealed and lost again.”

uttalande den 5/2 2017

Julian Assange hat sich schick gemacht. Blaue Krawatte, dunkler Anzug. Vor ihm sitzt Sean Hannity, einer der führenden Scharfmacher in den USA. Nein, nein, sagt Assange. Von wegen Russland. "Unsere Quelle ist kein staatlicher Akteur", beteuert er. Mehr könne er aber leider nicht preisgeben: "Wir stehen im Ruf, unsere Quellen zu schützen."

Assange ist gerade sehr gefragt. Lange galt der 45-Jährige in den USA als Staatsfeind und Verräter. Aber seit er über seine Enthüllungsplattform WikiLeaks Tausende E-Mails von Hillary Clintons Chefstrategen John Podesta veröffentlichte und damit den Wahlkampf der Demokratin massiv störte, wird er von der politischen Rechten wie ein Held hofiert. Hannity reiste eigens nach London, um ihn eine Stunde lang zu interviewen.

Er glaube ihm "jedes Wort", schmeichelte der "Fox"-Mann seinem Gesprächspartner vor einem Millionenpublikum.

Die konservative Schwärmerei für Assange geht weit über Hannity hinaus. Sarah Palin, die schrille Ex-Gouverneurin von Alaska, lobt ihn dafür, Amerikanern mit den Clinton-Enthüllungen "die Augen geöffnet" zu haben. Rudy Giuliani, New Yorks ehemaliger Bürgermeister, hält WikiLeaks für "erfrischend". Und selbst Donald Trump verbündete sich am Mittwoch mit Assange. "Julian Assange hat gesagt, ein 14-Jähriger hätte Podesta hacken können", twitterte der Republikaner.

Die Allianz, die sich im Wahlkampf bereits angedeutet hatte, ist erstaunlich. Vielen Amerikanern ist noch allzu gut in Erinnerung, wie Assange die USA 2010 international blamierte, indem er vertrauliche Botschaftsdepeschen und Militärgeheimnisse veröffentlichte und sich als Kämpfer gegen amerikanische Kriegsverbrechen inszenierte. Noch erstaunlicher ist die Allianz, wenn man sich die Meinungen in Erinnerung ruft, die Trump und Co. damals von Assange hatten. Eine "Schande" sei dessen Agieren, so Trump 2010: "Ich finde, es sollte dafür so etwas wie die Todesstrafe geben." Assange führe "Krieg" gegen die USA und gehöre ins Gefängnis, meinte Hannity. Und heute? Vergessen, vergeben. Die Wahlkampf-Enthüllungen haben Assange zu einem Freund werden lassen.

Das gilt längst nicht für alle in der Partei. Unter traditionellen Republikanern sorgt besonders die Kehrtwende Trumps für Empörung. "Ich vertraue unseren Geheimdienstbeamten wesentlich mehr als Menschen wie Julian Assange", sagt etwa Tom Cotton, Senator aus Arkansas, in Richtung des künftigen Präsidenten.

Tatsächlich dürften sich beide etwas von ihrer Allianz versprechen - Trump und Assange. Der nächste Präsident steht in einem offenen Konflikt mit seinen Geheimdiensten. Deren These, die russische Regierung habe ihm zum Wahlsieg verholfen, ist für Trump unangenehm, droht sie doch einen Schatten auf seine Amtszeit zu werfen. Jeder, der dabei hilft, Zweifel an der Spur nach Moskau zu streuen und den Eindruck zu verstärken, das Hacking-Rätsel könne ohnehin nie wirklich gelöst werden, ist dem 70-Jährigen herzlich willkommen. Dass er die Dienste öffentlich demütigt, indem er Assange zu einer Autorität in der Debatte erhebt, nimmt der Milliardär dabei gerne in Kauf. Von der CIA und ihren Partnerbehörden hält Trump ohnehin nicht viel.

Was sein eigenes Image angeht, könnte Assange ebenfalls hilfreich sein. Indem Trump sich mit einem Aktivisten solidarisiert, der von vielen immer noch im linken Lager verortet wird, untermauert er seine vermeintliche Unabhängigkeit.

Assange wiederum kann die neue Umarmungsstrategie aus dem Trump-Lager dringend gebrauchen - zuletzt war es immer einsamer geworden um den 45-Jährigen. Seit mehr als vier Jahren sitzt der Australier nun in einer Wohnung in London fest, die als Botschaft Ecuadors dient - zuletzt kappten ihm seine Gastgeber zwischenzeitlich gar die Internetverbindung. Und die Amtszeit seines Schutzpatrons, Ecuadors linkem Präsidenten Rafael Correa, läuft im Frühjahr aus. Was wird dann aus Assange?

Der Australier war vor einem europäischen Haftbefehl aus Schweden wegen Vergewaltigungsvorwürfen in die Botschaft geflüchtet. Er bestreitet die Vorwürfe, befürchtet aber, dass er von der britischen Polizei verhaftet und über Schweden an die USA ausgeliefert werden könnte.

Dort wird gegen WikiLeaks seit den Veröffentlichungen zu den Kriegen in Afghanistan und Irak sowie den Depeschen ermittelt. WikiLeaks' Irak-Whistleblowerin Chelsea Manning wurde zu 35 Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt, ihre Strafe sitzt sie teilweise in Einzelhaft ab. Assange müsste Ähnliches fürchten. Wenn ihn also der künftige US-Präsident adelt und ihn andere Konservative nicht länger als Verräter bezeichnen, schadet das zumindest nicht.

The Statement

A Statement of Julian Assange, 10 Augusti 2013

Today the President of the United States validated Edward Snowden’s role as a whistleblower by announcing plans to reform America’s global surveillance program. But rather than thank Edward Snowden, the President laughably attempted to criticize him while claiming that there was a plan all along, “before Edward Snowden.” The simple fact is that without Snowden’s disclosures, no one would know about the programs and no reforms could take place. As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently once stated, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Luckily for the citizens of the world, Edward Snowden is one of those “people of good conscience” who did not “remain silent”, just as Pfc Bradley Manning and Daniel Ellsberg refused to remain silent.

Ironically, the Department of Justice is betraying two key principles that President Obama championed when he ran for office transparency and protection for whistleblowers. During his 2008 campaign, the President supported Whistleblowers, claiming their “acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled.” Yet his administration has prosecuted twice as many whistleblowers than all other administrations combined

Moreover, the US government’s hypocrisy over Snowden’s right to seek asylum has been stunning. America offers asylum to dissidents, whistleblowers and political refugees without regard to other governments opposition all the time. For example, the US has accepted 3,103 of their own asylees, 1,222 from Russia and 1,762 from Venezuela –

Today was a victory of sorts for Edward Snowden and his many supporters. As Snowden has stated, his biggest concern was if he blew the whistle and change did not occur. Well reforms are taking shape, and for that, the President and people of the United States and around the world owe Edward Snowden a debt of gratitude.

In my last column, "A Culture of Delusion," I wrote that "Americans live in a matrix of lies. Lies dominate every policy discussion, every political decision." This column will use two top news stories, Iranian nukes and Julian Assange, to illustrate how lies become "truth."

[...] Will we get World War III for Christmas? Possibly, if the US election is close as it approaches. If the election is too close to call, Netanyahu might throw the dice and rely on Obama following his lead. Iran will be attacked, and the consequences are unknowable.

Let's turn to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Like Iran, Assange has been demonized, not on the basis of facts but on the basis of lies.

Washington, which poses as a purveyor of human rights, has been mistreating if not torturing Bradley Manning since May 2010 without bringing him to trial in an effort to make Manning say that he and Assange constitute a spy team working against the US.

Assange is a celebrity, because Wikileaks publishes the news leaked to the organization that the Presstitute media suppresses. While in Sweden, Assange was picked up by two celebrity-hungry women who took him home to their beds. The women later bragged of their conquests on social media, but apparently when they found out that they were rivals, they turned on the "two-timer" Assange and made charges. One claimed that he had not used a condom as per her request, and the other claimed that she had offered one helping but he had taken two.

Whatever the accusations, the Swedish prosecutorial office investigated and dismissed the case. Despite this known fact, the Western Presstitute media reports that Assange is a fugitive evading rape charges by hiding in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. Even RT, an alternative media voice, has fallen for this disinformation.
After Assange was cleared in Sweden, a female prosecutor has tried to reopen the case. There is no evidence for her to bring charges, so she demanded that England arrest Assange and extradite him to Sweden to be questioned.
Normally, people are not subject to extradition for questioning. Only people who have been formally charged are extradited. But this detail wasn't of interest to the Presstitute media or to the British courts which ruled as Washington desired.
Opinions vary as to whether the female prosecutor who wants Assange for questioning is an ideological feminist who believes no heterosexual sex is legitimate or whether she is in the pay of Washington. But experts agree that once Assange is in Sweden he is certain to be turned over to Washington, which will demand his extradition on trumped up charges. Extradition on trumped up charges is difficult in England but easy in Sweden.

Assange offered to be questioned in London, but the female prosecutor refused. Now the Ecuadoran Embassy is offering to send Assange to the Ecuadoran Embassy in Sweden to be questioned, but Washington, London, and the Swedish prosecutor have refused. They want Assange without the protection of the asylum that Ecuador has granted him.
Washington has how made this obvious. John Glaser writing in Antiwar.com, September 26, 2012, reports: "Newly declassified documents have revealed that the US military designated WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange an enemy of the state, who can be killed or detained without trial." See also
Assange is Washington's enemy, because he let the truth get out. WikiLeaks is a journalistic enterprise, not a spy enterprise. It publishes information, some of which is leaked to it by whistleblowers, just as the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the New York Times. The information leaked to WikiLeaks has embarrassed Washington, because it shows Washington to be two-faced, a manipulator of other countries' governments and medias, and overflowing with mendacity.
In other words, Washington is not the light upon the hill but the gates of Hell or Mordor.
Assange had best be careful. If he again speaks to supportive crowds from a balcony of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, he is likely to be shot down by a CIA sniper.

Approved by Obama, of course. Or his successor.

DN:
Julian Assange has been fighting extradition to Sweden at a number of British courts. Why do you think it is important that he wins on Wednesday?

John Pilger:
Because the attempt to extradite Assange is unjust and political. I have read almost every scrap of evidence in this case and it's clear, in terms of natural justice, that no crime was committed. The case would not have got this far had it not been for the intervention of Claes Borgström, a politician who saw an opportunity when the Stockholm prosecutor threw out almost all the police allegations. Borgström was then in the middle of an election campaign. When asked why the case was proceeding when both women had said that the sex had been consensual with Assange, he replied, "Ah, but they're not lawyers." If the Supreme Court in London rejects Assange's appeal, the one hope is the independence of the Swedish courts. However, as the London Independent has revealed, Sweden and the US have already begun talks on Assange's "temporary surrender" to the US -- where he faces concocted charges and the prospect of unlimited solitary confinement. And for what? For telling epic truths. Every Swede who cares about justice and the reputation of his or her society should care deeply about this.

You have said that Julian Assange's human rights have been breached. In what way?

One of the most fundamental human rights -- that of the presumption of innocence -- has been breached over and over again in Assange's case. Convicted of no crime, he has been the object of character assassination --perfidious and inhuman -- and highly political smear, of which the evidence is voluminous. This is what Britain's most distinguished and experienced human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, has written: "Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions ... it is very hard to preserve for [Assange] any presumption of innocence. He has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country. [and] his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged."

You, as well as Julian Assange, don't seem to have confidence in the Swedish judicial system. Why not?

It's difficult to have confidence in a prosecutorial system that is so contradictory and flagrantly uses the media to achieve its aims. Whether or not the Supreme Court in London find for or against Assange, the fact that this case has reached the highest court in this country is itself a condemnation of the competence and motivation of those so eager to incarcerate him, having already had plenty of opportunity to to question him properly. What a waste all this is.

If Julian Assange is innocent, as he says, would it not have been better if he had gone to Stockholm to sort things out? Assange tried to "sort things out", as you put it. Right from the beginning, he offered repeatedly to be questioned -- first in Sweden, then in the UK. He sought and received permission to leave Sweden - which makes a nonsense of the claim that he has avoided questioning. The prosecutor who has since pursued him has refused to give any explanation about why she will not use standard procedures, which Sweden and the UK have signed up to.

IF the Supreme Court decides that Julain Assange can/should be extradited to Sweden, what consequences/risks do you see for Julian Assange?

First, I would draw on my regard for ordinary Swedes' sense of fairness and justice. Alas, overshadowing that is a Swedish elite that has forged sinister and obsequious links with Washington. These powerful people have every reason to see Julian Assange as a threat. For one thing, their vaunted reputation for neutrality has been repeatedly exposed as a sham in US cables leaked by WikiLeaks. One cable revealed that "the extent of [Sweden's military and intelligence] co-operation [with Nato] is not widely known" and unless kept secret "would open up the government to domestic criticism". Another was entitled "WikiLeaks puts neutrality in the dustbin of history". Don't the Swedish public have a right to know what the powerful say in private in their name?

Frost intervjuar Julian Assange

Julian Assange, the co-founder of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks - which is currently releasing over 250,000 confidential American diplomatic cables - is in the UK fighting extradition to Sweden where he is wanted on charges for sexual assault.
He joins Sir David to talk about a host of issues, from his personal situation to the role of WikiLeaks as a bastion of transparency, championing the right to reveal government secrets, when it is in the publics' interest.
When he co-founded WikiLeaks he saw that he could encourage, through successful examples, people to step forward to reveal abuses by governments - to produce more justice. Subscribing to the motto that 'courage is contagious', Assange claims not to be an anarchist, rather his modus operandi is to promote responsible governance.
Now his lawyers are concerned that he will end up in an American jail, either directly through extradition from the UK, or through extradition from Sweden.
Assange heavily implies that receiving a fair trial in Sweden is doubtful. Why was the most senior prosecutor in Sweden removed (and replaced) after he said there was "no evidence or even suspicion" of rape? Why do Swedish authorities refuse to provide British officials with any evidence of crimes Assange allegedly commited - including witholding the statements of the victims?
He is hesitant to blame his two accusers for their allegations against him, suggesting they could be innocently caught up in a greater political scheme.

Konstaterar 16 januari att Yanks successivt släcker ner siter listade. Som man kunde befara. Makt och finansiell styrka avgör...

Julian Assange

uttalande den 5/2 2017

uttalande den 5/2 2017

The Statement

instead go to: https://justice4assange.com/Assange-Case-Fact-Checker.html

Frost intervjuar Julian Assange