Rebuttal of Frequent Misrepresentations by the Australian Government

On the 30th April 2023, the editors collated a list of frequent misrepresentations by the Australian Government as reported through feedback from our active supporter base with 50,000 registrations

  1. The Australian Government has been clear in our view that enough is enough. It is time for Mr Assange’s case to be brought to a close.

Rebuttal: While we appreciate the sentiment, we urge the Australian Government to provide more specific details on what they mean by “bringing the case to a close”. A clear timeline or plan of action would demonstrate a stronger commitment to advocating for Mr Assange’s rights and wellbeing. This case needs an urgent and robust strategy to ensure the best outcome in the quickest of timelines. It can not be an open ended statement.

  1. The Foreign Minister has raised Mr Assange’s case at the highest levels and the Australian Government will continue to express its view to the governments of the UK and US.

Rebuttal: In March 2023 former senator Mr Rex Patrick received evidence from a freedom of information request that revealed that the Australian Government has not sent any formal letters to the UK or US governments regarding Mr Assange’s case. Not one letter has been sent from Anthony Albanese or Penny Wong in regard to Julian Assange. This raises fundamental questions about the level of commitment, integrity and action taken by the Australian Government in advocating for their citizen’s legal rights and wellbeing. We urge the Australian Government to take more concrete, transparent steps in supporting Mr Assange’s case.

  1. Anthony Albanese has indicated he would pursue quiet diplomacy saying: ‘My position is that not all foreign affairs is best done with the loudhailer.”

Rebuttal: It is important for any government to engage in diplomacy and seek to resolve issues through peaceful means. However, in the case of Julian Assange, quiet diplomacy has not been effective in securing his release or ensuring his legal rights are protected. In fact, many believe that a more public and assertive approach is necessary to address the violations of Mr. Assange’s human rights and to bring attention to the implications of his case for press freedom and the right to information.
Furthermore, the use of “quiet diplomacy” can often result in a lack of transparency and accountability, allowing governments to act with impunity and without proper scrutiny. It is important for the Australian Government to demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability in its approach to Mr. Assange’s case, and to ensure that it is advocating for the legal rights and wellbeing of its citizen in a manner that is consistent with democratic principles and international law.

  1. In 2019 Mr Assange had withdrawn consent for Consular Support. Since that time, the Department of Foreign Affairs has written 45 times to offer to visit.

Rebuttal: It is important to note that Mr Assange’s has never rejected, refused or rescinded consular support. It is true however that in 2019 Mr Assange withdrew his consent for the Australian Government to have access to his medical records. It was not Assange that rejected consular support but the Australia Government withdrew it and then blamed Mr Assange. We urge the Australian Government to take a more proactive and committed approach in advocating for Mr Assange’s case.

  1. The Australian Government recognises the sovereignty of other nations and their legal systems. We cannot interfere with court proceedings in other countries.

While we acknowledge the importance of respecting the sovereignty of other nations, we urge the Australian Government to take a more active role in advocating for Mr Assange’s legal rights and wellbeing, as they have done in the past for other Australians in trouble abroad. The Australian government has through diplomatic intervention won the release of six Australian citizens from foreign jails since 2007: David Hicks (U.S./Guantanamo), Melinda Taylor (Libya), James Ricketson (Cambodia), Sean Turnell (Myanmar), Kylie Moore-Gilbert (Iran), and Peter Greste (Egypt). In the case of Kylie Moore-Gilbert, an Australian academic who was imprisoned in Iran on charges of espionage, the Australian Government intervened diplomatically and provided legal support for her case. Similarly, in the case of David Hicks, an Australian citizen who was detained at Guantanamo Bay, the Australian Government provided legal assistance and advocated for his repatriation. He was never put on trial by the U.S. after years in Guantanamo. Yet Australia intervened to free him while that legal process played out. Hicks was never put on trial after years spent in Guantanamo. The legal process in Turnell’s case was still ongoing as, like Assange, he had only been charged, but not convicted.
We believe that the Australian Government should take a similar approach in the case of Mr Assange, which can include diplomatic efforts, public statements, and legal interventions in support of his case.

  1. The US has a separation of power and President Biden cannot interfere with the Department of Justice – judicial process in Mr Assange’s case.

Rebuttal: While it is true that the US has a separation of powers, it is important to note that the US government holds significant influence and power in the outcome of Mr Assange’s case. We urge the US government to ensure that Mr Assange receives a fair and just legal process, in accordance with international law and human rights standards. The Australian Government must also continue to advocate for their citizen’s legal rights and wellbeing in the face of potential human rights violations.
One example of a president using their influence to drop alleged charges is the case of President Obama and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In 2013, Snowden was charged with multiple violations of the Espionage Act after he leaked classified information about the US government’s surveillance activities. However, in 2016, President Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning, a former Army intelligence analyst who had also leaked classified information and commuted her sentence. This led some to speculate that President Obama may have been considering a similar pardon or commutation for Snowden.
Another example is the case of President Trump and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 election, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to drop the charges against him in 2020. This move was criticised by some as a politically motivated decision influenced by President Trump.
While these examples may not be directly applicable to the case of Mr Assange, they demonstrate the potential for presidential influence in the legal process. It is important for the US government to ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially, regardless of any political considerations.

Obama Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

On the 29th December 2009, President Barack Obama issued an executive order defining conditions on classifying information

This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism.  Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government.  Also, our Nation’s progress depends on the free flow of information both within the Government and to the American people.  Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations.  Protecting information critical to our Nation’s security and demonstrating our commitment to open Government through accurate and accountable application of classification standards and routine, secure, and effective declassification are equally important priorities.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Sec. 1.7.  Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.

(a)  In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1)  conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2)  prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3)  restrain competition; or
(4)  prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

Editors Note: Being Australian we are unsure of the gravity of breaching a US President’s Executive Order. If say there were a widespread and significant breaches of an Australian Minister’s directives then we would expect at least calls for a Royal Commission. However as the US President is Commander in Chief of the US military then could one expect widespread and significant breaches to be considered acts of mutiny? We draw attention to the Generals in ability to provide the Collateral Murder videos over multiple requests by Reuters. Seemingly their bureaucratic incompetence was a ploy to ‘prevent embarrassment’

Refer Archives Document
The Guardian – All Lies

48 Australian Parliamentarians Petition US Attorney General to End Extradition Proceedings 

On the 11th April 2023 the following appeal was dispatched to the US Department of Justice with the signatures of 48 members of Australia’s 47th Parliament

The Honourable Merrick B. Garland 
Attorney General of the United States of America 
US Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW  
WASHINGTON DC 20530-0001 

Dear Attorney General 

We write to you as Australian parliamentarians from the Government, Opposition and crossbench to call on you to end the extradition proceedings against Australian citizen, Mr Julian Assange. Mr Assange is the Australian journalist and publisher, currently detained in His Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh in London awaiting a decision on extradition to the United States of America. 

As you would be aware, the previous US Administration brought charges against Mr Assange for seventeen counts relating to allegedly obtaining and disclosing information under the Espionage Act of 1917, and one count under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1968. The charges pertain to Mr Assange’s actions, as a journalist and publisher for WikiLeaks, in publishing information with evidence of war crimes, corruption and human rights abuses. 

If the extradition request is approved, Australians will witness the deportation of one of our citizens from one AUKUS partner to another – our closest strategic ally – with Mr Assange facing the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison. This would set a dangerous precedent for all global citizens, journalists, publishers, media organizations and the freedom of the press. It would also be needlessly damaging for the US as a world leader on freedom of expression and the rule of law. 

International experts oppose the continued persecution of Mr Assange, including the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, as well as human rights organisations, various heads of state and parliamentarians from around the world. 

Attorney General, Australian public opinion on this matter is clear. Indeed polling shows that 88 per cent of Australians either support, or are unopposed, to calls for Mr Assange to be brought back to Australia. Mr Assange has been effectively incarcerated for well over a decade in one form or another, yet the person who leaked classified information had their sentence commuted and has been able to participate in American society since 2017. A clear majority of Australians consider that this matter has gone on for far too long and must be brought to a close. We implore you to drop the extradition proceedings and allow Mr Assange to return home. 

Yours sincerely 

Australian Parliamentarians 
Signatories overleaf 

  • Senator Penny Allman-Payne  ( Senator for Queensland )
  • Michelle Ananda-Rajah MP  ( Member for Higgins)
  • Bridget Archer MP  ( Member for Bass )  
  • Senator Ralph Babet  ( Senator for Victoria ) 
  • Adam Bandt MP  ( Member for Melbourne )
  • Stephen Bates MP  ( Member for Brisbane )
  • Senator The Hon Matthew Canavan  ( Senator for Queensland )
  • Max Chandler-Mather MP  ( Member for Griffith )
  • Kate Chaney MP  ( Member for Curtin) 
  • Senator Dorinda Cox  (Senator for Western Australia )
  • Zoe Daniel MP  (Member for Goldstein) 
  • The Hon Warren Entsch MP   (Member for Leichhardt )
  • Senator Dr Mehreen Faruqi  (Senator for New South Wales) 
  • Dr Mike Freelander MP  (Member for Macarthur )
  • Dr Helen Haines MP  (Member for Indi )
  • Senator Sarah Hanson-Young ( Senator for South Australia )
  • Julian Hill MP  ( Member for Bruce )
  • The Hon Barnaby Joyce MP  ( Member for New England )
  • Peter Khalil MP  ( Member for Wills )
  • Tania Lawrence MP  ( Member for Hasluck )  
  • Zaneta Mascarenhas MP  ( Member for Swan )
  • Senator Nick McKim  ( Senator for Tasmania )  
  • Brian Mitchell MP  ( Member for Lyons )  
  • Llew O’Brien MP  ( Member for Wide Bay )
  • Alicia Payne MP  ( Member for Canberra )  
  • Graham Perrett MP  ( Member for Moreton )
  • Senator Barbara Pocock  ( Senator for South Australia )
  • Senator David Pocock  ( Senator for Australian Capital Territory )
  • Senator Gerard Rennick  ( Senator for Queensland )
  • Senator Janet Rice  ( Senator for Victoria )
  • Senator Malcolm Roberts ( Senator for Queensland )
  • Dr Monique Ryan MP  ( Member for Kooyong )
  • Dr Sophie Scamps MP  ( Member for Mackellar )
  • Rebekha Sharkie MP  ( Member for Mayo )
  • Senator David Shoebridge  ( Senator for New South Wales  )
  • Allegra Spender MP  ( Member for Wentworth )
  • Senator Jordon Steele-John  ( Senator for Western Australia )
  • Zali Steggall OAM MP  ( Member for Warringah )
  • Susan Templeman MP ( Member for Macquarie )
  • Senator Lidia Thorpe ( Senator for Victoria )
  • Kylea Tink MP ( Member for North Sydney )
  • Maria Vamvakinou MP  ( Member for Calwell )
  • Senator Larissa Waters  ( Senator for Queensland) 
  • Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP  ( Member for Ryan )
  • Senator Peter Whish-Wilson  ( Senator for Tasmania ) 
  • Andrew Wilkie MP  ( Member for Clark )
  • Josh Wilson MP  ( Member for Fremantle )  
  • Tony Zappia MP  (Member for Makin)

Public Statement : III World Forum on Human Rights

On the 24th March 2023, the members of the Third World Forum on Human Rights submitted this appeal on behalf of Julian Assange to the US Department of Justice

We, the undersigned participants of the III World Forum on Human Rights, express our concern about the extradition requested by the United States of America in relation to the journalist and founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, currently on remand in subhuman conditions in the high security prison of Belmarsh, in the United Kingdom.

Extraditing Julian Assange would set a dangerous precedent for press freedom and the right to access information globally. Not only would it be a life sentence against this journalist, Julian Assange, but it would act as a veiled threat to all journalists around the world who aim to do their job in an honest manner.

Mr. Assange is charged under the Espionage Act 1917, a law that has never been used against a journalist for publishing accurate information concerning egregious international crimes. The UK-US Extradition Treaty itself, which forms the basis for this extradition request, specifically prohibits extradition for political offences. The same is true of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition, the Interpol Constitution and other bilateral treaties ratified by the United States of America. The prohibition on extradition for political offences is also enshrined in the Inter-American Human Rights System.

Mr. Assange engaged in normal practices of investigative journalism, such as receiving information from sources and then publishing that accurate information which was in the public interest. Charges under the Espionage Act would criminalise these routine journalistic practices, thus being a direct threat to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

It was precisely this irreconcilable conflict between these charges and the First Amendment that led former President Barack Obama’s Administration to rightly deny an indictment against Mr. Assange because it would criminalise the practice of journalism at its core.

Mr. Assange was arrested on 11 April 2019 and is now one of the longest detainees on remand in the United Kingdom.

We the undersigned demand a renewed confidence on the international rule of law and that of the United States, by the latter withdrawing the charges against Mr. Assange and ending the ongoing extradition before the UK courts.

By this Statement we express our full agreement with the view of the Council of Europe, which considers the treatment of Mr. Assange to be among “the most serious threats to press freedom”.

With that in mind, we add our voices to a growing public outcry in civil society, human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, to that of United Nations agencies, the world’s leading media, press freedom associations, medical organisations, as well as most of the political and judicial agencies which have demanded a stop to the persecution of Mr. Assange and to proceed to his immediate release.

We urge the U.S. Department of Justice to drop all charges against Mr. Assange by relying on the U.S. Constitution itself, on human rights standards recognised by International Law, as well as fundamental humanitarian values, as the life of a journalist is at risk, and freedom of the press and the right to access to information globally are at risk.


  • Alberto Fernández, President of Argentina.
  • Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Vice-President of Argentina.
  • Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize Recipient and Honorary President of the WorldForum on Human Rights Argentina 2023.
  • Estela de Carlotto, Honorary President of the World Forum on Human Rights Argentina2023.
  • Fernanda Gil Lozano, Executive Director International Centre for the Promotion of HumanRights
  • Mothers of Plaza de Mayo Association, Argentina.
  • Mothers of Plaza de Mayo Línea Fundadora, Argentina.
  • Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo, Argentina.
  • Tristán Bauer, Minister of Culture of Argentina.
  • Horacio Pietragalla Corti, Human Rights Secretary of Argentina.
  • Axel Kicillof, Governor of Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  • Matías Capeluto, Director of Casa Patria Grande, Argentina.
  • Rafael Correa, Former President of Ecuador.
  • Ernesto Samper, Former President of Colombia.
  • Evo Morales, Former President of Bolivia.
  • Pepe Mujica, Former President of Uruguay.
  • José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Former President of Spain.
  • Baltasar Garzón Real, Former Judge, and Coordinator of Julian Assange’s Legal DefenceTeam.
  • Pablo Gentili, Executive Secretary of the World Forum on Human Rights Argentina 2023.
  • Rodrigo Gómez Tortosa, Adjunct Executive Secretary of the World Forum on HumanRights Argentina 2023.
  • Adoración Guamán, Professor of Employment Law, Universitat de València, Spain.
  • Amina Masood Janjua, Activist, Pakistan.
  • Camila Cuasialpud, Executive Director, Vivamos Humanos, Colombia.
  • Camilo Lagos, Grupo de Puebla, Chile.
  • Cruz Melchor Eya Nchama, Human Rights Defender, Equatorial Guinea.
  • Enrique Santiago, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Spain.
  • Erick Alfredo Guerrero, Deputies Congress, Spain.
  • Felipe Llamas, Councillor, Más Madrid, Spain.
  • Gerardo Pisarello Prados, Head Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Barcelona,Spain.
  • Gabriela Alejandra Rivadeneira Burbano, Assembly Member, Ecuador.
  • Gisele Ricobom, Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana, Foz do Iguaçu(UNILA), Brazil.
  • Hugo Martínez, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, El Salvador.
  • Juan Carlos Monedero Fernández, President of the República&Democracia Institute, Spain.
  • Kathia Sabrina Dudyk, Researcher, FLACSO, Brazil.
  • Marco Antonio Enríquez-Ominami Gamucio, Coordinator Grupo de Puebla, Chile.
  • Mónica Xavier, Former President of the Frente Amplio Coalition, Uruguay.
  • Natividad del Carmen Llanquileo Pilquimán, Former Member of the ConstitutionalConvention, Chile.
  • Nila Heredia Miranda, Former President of the Truth Commission, Bolivia.
  • Salete Sirlei Valesan Camba, Flacso, Brazil.
  • María Eugenia Rodríguez Palop, European MP, Spain.
  • Shui-Meng NG, Activist against Forced Disappearances and Human Rights Defender,Malaysia
  • Teresa Ulloa, Regional Director of the Regional Coalition Against Trafficking of Women andGirls in Latin American and the Caribbean, México.
  • Clarissa Ramina, CLAJUD, Brazil.
  • Claudia Gonçalves, University of The State of Río de Janeiro, UERJ, Brazil.
  • American Association of Jurists.
  • Civil Association Justicia Legítima, Argentina.
  • Permanent Assembly of Human Rights, APDH, Argentina.
  • Grupo de Puebla.
  • Latin-Americans Council on Justice and Democracy, CLAJUD.
  • David Adler, General Coordinator of Progressive International.
  • The Trade Union of Media Workers, Buenos Aires, SIPREBA, Argentina.
  • The Federation of Media Workers, Buenos Aires, FATPREN, Argentina.
  • Autonomous Workers Union, CTAA, Argentina.
  • Workers Union of Argentina, CTA, Argentina.
  • Florencia Saintout, President of the Cultural Institute of the Buenos Aires Province,Argentina.
  • Raúl Zaffaroni, Former Member of the Supreme Court of Argentina, Argentina.
  • Carlos Raimundi, Ambassador of Argentina before the OAS.
  • Carlos Alfonso Tomada, Ambassador of Argentina in México.
  • Ariel Basteiro, Ambassador of Argentina in the Plurinational State of Bolivia.
  • Rafael Bielsa, Ambassador of Argentina in the Republic of Chile.
  • Luis Ilarregui, Ambassador of Argentina in Cuba.
  • Alicia Castro, Former Ambassador of Argentina in the UK, Argentina.
  • Oscar Parrilli, National Senator, Argentina.
  • Eduardo Valdés, National MP, Argentina.
  • Mónica Macha, National MP, Argentina.
  • Hugo Yasky, National MP and General Secretary of the CTA, Argentina.
  • Hugo Cachorro Godoy, General Secretary of the Autonomous CTA, Argentina.
  • Leopoldo Moreau, National MP, Argentina.
  • Cecilia Nicolini, Secretary Cambio Climático, Desarrollo Sostenible e Innovación, Argentina.
  • Blanca Osuna, National MP, Argentina.
  • Carlos Heller, National MP, Argentina.
  • Juan Manuel Pedrini, National MP, Argentina.
  • Leila Chaher, National MP, Argentina.
  • Rosana Bertone, National MP, Argentina.
  • Mara Brawer, National MP, Argentina.
  • Silvana Ginocchio, National MP, Argentina.
  • Carmela Moreau, General Secretary, Igualar Party, Argentina.
  • Rodolfo Tailhade, National MP, Argentina.
  • Mabel Caparros, National MP, Argentina.
  • Leonardo Grosso, National MP, Argentina.
  • Carolina Moisés, National MP, Argentina.
  • Liliana Mazure, National MP, Argentina.
  • Karol Cariola, MP, Republic of Chile.
  • Martín Sabbatella, President of Nuevo Encuentro.
  • Antolín Magallanes, President of Nuevo Encuentro – CABA.
  • Delia Bisutti, Vice- President of Nuevo Encuentro – CABA.
  • Marita Perceval, Special Representative for Foreign Affairs – Women Issues, Argentina.
  • Cristina Caamaño, Former Intervenor AFI, Argentina.
  • Víctor Hugo Morales, Journalist, Argentina.
  • Santiago O ́Donnell, Journalist, Argentina.
  • Cynthia García, Journalist, Argentina.
  • Mariano Duahalde, Founder of the Eduardo Luis Duahalde Foundation, Argentina.
  • María Belén Bertoli, Journalist, Argentina.
  • Ernesto Lucero, Sociologist and Journalist of Patria Grande, Argentina.
  • Oscar “Chino” Martinez Zemborain, Journalist, Argentina.
  • Guido Carlotto, Former Secretary of Human Rights of the Buenos Aires Province, Argentina.
  • Elizabeth Gómez Alcorta, Human Rights Lawyer, Argentina.
  • Luis Alén, Director of the Degree on Justice and Human Rights, Universidad Nacional deLanus, Argentina.
  • Edgardo Binstock, Former Secretary of Human Rights of the Buenos Aires Province,Argentina.
  • Adela Segarra, Former National MP, Argentina.
  • Cecilia Rossetto, Actress, Argentina.
  • Alejandro Vanelli, Actor and Producer, Argentina.
  • Susana Torres Molina, Playwright, Argentina.
  • Beatriz Spelzini, Actress, Argentina.
  • Jorge Paccini, Actor, Argentina.
  • María Ibarreta, Actress, Argentina.
  • Ernesto Larrese, Actor, Argentina.
  • Cristina Benegas, Actress, Argentina.
  • Mirtha Busnelli, Actress, Argentina.
  • Cristina Tejedor, Actress, Argentina.

24 March 2023, City of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Statement as a PDF

A call from newspapers for Julian Assange: Publishing is not a crime

On the 28th November 2022, La Monde first published an open letter signed by The New York Times , The Guardian , Le Monde , Der Spiegel and El Pais (Google translated from French)

Five international media, including “Le Monde”, publish an open letter saying that “the United States government must stop its prosecution” against the whistleblower who revealed secret information in 2010.

Twelve years ago, on November 28, 2010, our five international press organs ( The New York TimesThe GuardianLe MondeEl Paisand Der Spiegel) joined together to publish, in collaboration with WikiLeaks, a series of revelations picked up by the media around the world.

More than 251,000 diplomatic cables from the United States Department of State were made public during this “Cablegate”, shedding light on several cases of corruption, diplomatic scandals and espionage operations on a global scale. .

As the New York Timeswrote at the time , the leaked documents told “the unvarnished story of how the government makes its most important decisions, those with the greatest human and financial cost to the country. Today, in 2022, this exceptional documentary source is still used by journalists and historians alike, who still find material there for the publication of unpublished revelations.

Endless lawsuits

For the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, this “Cablegate” and several other “leaks” or leaks of sensitive documents have had extremely serious consequences. On April 12, 2019, Julian Assange, under a US arrest warrant, was apprehended in London. For three and a half years now, he has been detained on British soil, in a high security prison which normally houses terrorists or members of groups linked to organized crime. He risks being extradited to the United States, where he faces a sentence of up to one hundred and seventy-five years in a very high security prison.

Our group of editors and managing editors, all of whom have had the opportunity to work with Julian Assange, found it necessary to publicly criticize his attitude in 2011 when uncensored versions of the diplomatic cables were made public, and some of us remain concerned about the allegation in the US indictment that he aided in the computer intrusion into a classified “defense-secret” database. But we stand together today to express our deep concern over the endless legal proceedings that Julian Assange is facing for collecting and publishing confidential and sensitive information.

The Obama-Biden administration, in power when WikiLeaks was published in 2010, refrained from suing Julian Assange, explaining that many journalists from several major media should also have been prosecuted. This position recognized freedom of the press as crucial, regardless of the unpleasant consequences.

But this vision of things has evolved under the mandate of Donald Trump: the Department of Justice now relies on a law dating back more than a century, the Espionage Act of 1917. Conceived during the First World War to be able to sue would-be spies, this federal law had never been used against journalists, media outlets or broadcasters. Such an indictment sets a dangerous precedent, threatens the freedom of information and risks reducing the scope of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

A dangerous precedent

In a democracy, one of the fundamental missions of an independent press is to hold governments accountable.

Collecting and disseminating sensitive information is likewise an essential part of a journalist’s day-to-day work, when such disclosure proves to be in the public interest. If this work is declared criminal, then not only the quality of public debate but also our democracies will be considerably weakened.

Twelve years after the first publications linked to “Cablegate”, the time has come for the United States government to drop its charges against Julian Assange for having published secret information.

Publishing is not a crime.

Translated from English by Lucas Faugère.

This text is signed by the editors of: The New York Times , The Guardian , Le Monde , Der Spiegel , El Pais .

Read Original Articles in
La Monde
New York Times
The Guardian
El País
Der Spiegel
and many many other news papers world wide

The articles in La Monde covering the Assange Saga
 WikiLeaks: those responsible for “Cablegate” are to be sought in Washington
It is high time to act before Julian Assange pays with his life the price of our freedoms

USA’s Military Empire: A Visual Database

World Beyond War have published map of US Military bases around the world.

The United States of America, unlike any other nation, maintains a massive network of foreign military installations around the world.

How was this created and how is it continued? Some of these physical installations are on land occupied as spoils of war. Most are maintained through collaborations with governments, many of them brutal and oppressive governments benefiting from the bases’ presence. In many cases, human beings were displaced to make room for these military installations, often depriving people of farmland, adding huge amounts of pollution to local water systems and the air, and existing as an unwelcome presence.

Static image of the dynamic map on Beyond War web site.

Read original article World Beyond War

Click on map to open page with dynamic map

Read original article in World Beyond War

Ithaka: Film about Julian Assange to be released in the US

On the 13th Novembers 2022, Luisana Castro writes on Fuser News ( Google Translation from Spanish )

The production shows that Assange has been targeted to divert public attention from what WikiLeaks has revealed.

This Sunday, the film Ithaka, which deals with the search for John Shipton, father of the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange , to save his son, private , opens in New York City, United States (USA). of freedom in the maximum security prison of Berlmarsh, in London, for more than three years.

Since the tragedy of the activist began, the media have focused attention on politics and the law, leaving aside the human part of Assange, which involves his family circle.

The same is true of the cyberactivist’s supporters, who also sometimes overlook the person and focus instead on the bigger issues at stake, reports an article published in the Consortium News by Joe Lauria.

Consortium News, the outlet that has provided perhaps the most comprehensive coverage of the WikiLeaks publisher’s Espionage Act indictment, has also focused more on the case and less on the man.


The film Ithaka, directed by Ben Lawrence and produced by Assange’s brother Gabriel Shipton, humanizes the Australian activist and reveals the impact his ordeal has had on those closest to him. It shows the legal and political complexities of the case and its background.

The title of this tape comes from the poem of the same name by Constantino Cavafis, about the pathos of an uncertain journey. It reflects Shipton’s travels across Europe and the United States in defense of his son, arguably the most important journalist of his generation.

The story begins as Shipton arrives in London to see his son behind bars for the first time after a new Ecuadorian government lifted the publisher’s asylum rights, leading to London police removing him from the embassy in April 2019.

In the film, the big issues involved transcend the individual: war, diplomacy, official deceit, high crimes, an assault on press freedom, and the core of what little democracy remains in a militarized system corrupted by government. money.

The production shows that Assange has been targeted to divert public attention from what WikiLeaks has revealed, from what the state is doing to him to hide the impact on media freedom and courtroom standards.

The creators of the audiovisual to be released in the US placed the main focus of the film on the extradition hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court that began in February 2020 and ended in September of that year. In the lead up to the hearing, Shipton explains how important family is to him at this stage of his life.


The film explores the romance between Stella Morris and Julian Assange, which began inside the Ecuadorian embassy in 2015, showing grainy CIA-ordered surveillance footage of them meeting.

During his appearance on the video, Morris talks about his decision to start a family while there were no charges against him, no known investigation, and after a UN panel ruled that he was being arbitrarily detained and should be released.

Laurence, the writer points out that in another scene, “we see Assange briefly in prison during a video call on Stella’s phone. She shows him the sunlight and he enjoys the sound of a horse in the street.” During the recording of a BBC interview, Stella is seen to break down emotionally.

“Extraditions are 99% politics and 1% law,” says Stella. “He just needs to be treated as a human being and not be denied his dignity and his humanity, which is what has been done to him,” Assange’s wife notes in the film.

Read original article in FuserNews