Julian Assange Show Trial: U.S. and UK in the Dock

On 28th February 2020 The extradition trial for journalist and publisher Julian Assange is nothing but a travesty. His brutal persecution by American and British authorities is a shocking indictment of these Western states and their hypocritical pretensions about professing democratic rights and rule of law. Assange may be the one sitting in the dock. … Continue reading “Julian Assange Show Trial: U.S. and UK in the Dock”

On 28th February 2020

The extradition trial for journalist and publisher Julian Assange is nothing but a travesty. His brutal persecution by American and British authorities is a shocking indictment of these Western states and their hypocritical pretensions about professing democratic rights and rule of law.

Assange may be the one sitting in the dock. But the whole world can see that it is not he who is really on trial, but rather the so-called authorities who are persecuting him.

The 48-year-old Australian-born founder of Wikileaksis being prosecuted for one simple reason. He exposed war crimes and global corruption perpetrated by the U.S. government and its Western allies. The abysmal fate he finds himself in stems from that concise truth.

Ever since Assange published war crimes committed by the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010-2011, he has been hounded for revenge. Despite confinement for seven years at an embassy in London, seeking asylum, Assange went on to expose more colossal corruption such as illegal global spying against governments and citizens by the U.S. state. For these “crimes”, he has been hunted down, mercilessly.

In order to conceal the travesty, the American government is demanding that Assange be extradited from Britain to face criminal charges of espionage and computer hacking. If he is extradited, which will be decided after further court hearings in Britain later this year, Assange could be facing 175 years in prison. This week was the opening of the extradition trial.

The legal arguments and procedural abuses against Assange are “beyond caricature”, as former British diplomat Craig Murray points out. Murray and many other public supporters of Assange attended the court hearings this week. His informed commentaries are a must-read.

From the opening day, it was clear that the journalist would not receive a fair trial. Before attending court he had been cuffed and strip-searched several times on his way to the hearing from the maximum-security prison, Belmarsh Category A Prison, near London, where he has been held in solitary confinement for nearly a year. Assange, an intelligent, placid truth-teller, is being treated like a dangerous terrorist. That appalling circumstance alone tells any casual observer what is really going on.

The overt bias and hostility to the defendant from the sitting judge, Vanessa Baraitser, makes it obvious that there is no due process for Assange. His guilty verdict in her eyes is a foregone conclusion. The fact that Assange was confined to a glass-fronted dock during the whole week of hearings, unable to communicate with his defense team, and ordered, imperiously, to sit down several times by the judge whenever he tried to protest the absurd circumstances, demonstrates beyond any doubt that this is not a fair trial. It is a show trial.

The legal proceedings against Assange have the same aura as Alice in Wonderland. As Craig Murray and other observers have commented, the prosecution case is replete with contradictions, irrationality and irrelevancies, an edifice of make-believe that his shored up by vindictive prejudice and caprice.

If there were any justice, the case against Assange should be thrown out immediately. But no, it trundles on under the guise of legal gravitas and evident collusion between the American and British authorities. Because the objective is to crush Assange for daring to expose the war crimes, crimes against humanity and the rank global corruption out of Washington and London.

This is not just about a vendetta against one individual. The consequence of the inquisition unfolding against Assange is the destruction of any vestige of fundamental democratic rights that citizens in the U.S. and Britain presume to possess. If Assange is extradited, then what is at stake is freedom of speech and the basic right to due legal process. Without such cardinal rights, the foundation of democracy is obsolete.

We have reached the point in history where the perpetrators of criminal wars and monstrous crimes explicitly view themselves as above the law. They have impunity to destroy nations and kill millions of innocents. Julian Assange should be venerated for exposing the crimes through his courageous and ethical journalism. The torture and persecution he is being subjected to show how degenerate supposed democratic governments have become. Anyone who dares to expose these perpetrators and their systematic crimes will be likewise liable for the same punishment as Assange.

A particularly disturbing – and yet revealing – aspect this week was the near-total silence among Western mainstream news media about the Assange case. None of the major U.S. or British news outlets gave any reporting on the trial – despite the shocking abuse of due process and the immensity of nefarious implications for democratic rights.

Julian Assange, his colleagues at Wikileaks and brave whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden all worked for the public good and the truth by exposing history-making corruption by the U.S. and British governments. They did this in a way that the corporate-controlled news media in those countries abjectly failed to do. Their silence about his persecution is thus their shame.

The American and British states and their obedient media tools have been – and are being – laid bare by the struggle of Julian Assange. Millions of people around the world are rallying to demand his freedom.

Thanks to Assange, they are seeing that the would-be emperors and their fawning media lackeys have no clothes; that these would-be emperors are stripped bare from their presumed moral authority, and are naked in their lies and hypocrisies.

Follow article in the Strategic Culture Foundation

The Age: The only questions that should matter in the Assange extradition battle

On the 29th February 2020 Elizabeth Farrelly writes Even in my bleakest moments I’m glad I’m not Julian Assange. Seven years trapped inside the embassy opposite Harrods, with fake news in the air and police in the bushes. (Yes, I was there. I saw them). That alone would send me mad. Follow that with 10 … Continue reading “The Age: The only questions that should matter in the Assange extradition battle”

On the 29th February 2020 Elizabeth Farrelly writes

Even in my bleakest moments I’m glad I’m not Julian Assange. Seven years trapped inside the embassy opposite Harrods, with fake news in the air and police in the bushes. (Yes, I was there. I saw them). That alone would send me mad.

Follow that with 10 months’ solitary in what former British diplomat Craig Murray calls Britain’s Lubyanka, the ultra-grim high-security Belmarsh Prison. There, Assange has been subject to such harassment, arbitrariness, strip searches and abuse that both the UN Special Rapporteur and a group of more than 60 British doctors were impelled to protest his “torture” and his fellow inmates petitioned for his release from solitary. And now a bizarre hearing-cum-trial-by-public-opinion ending in possible extradition, a potential 175-year penalty and likely death in a harsh foreign jail. Why? For telling the truth.

. . .

On day two, Assange’s defence, Edward Fitzgerald QC, said the prosecution must prove three things: that Assange had helped Manning decode a hash key necessary to hack classified material, that Assange had solicited the material from Manning and that he had knowingly put lives at risk. There is, said Fitzgerald, no evidence on any of these counts, some of which were disproved in Manning’s court-martial. And the prosecution has admitted it cannot prove harm.

But even that is not the point. No one should be arguing the substantive case here. For now, the questions are; is this a political crime? Should Assange receive a fair trial? Does anyone believe he’ll get one in Trump’s America? And do we really think, given his poor health, he would survive prison there? The answers have to be yes, yes, no and, resoundingly, no.

Read whole article or watch news report in
The Age
The Sydney Morning Herald

Bob Carr calls for Australia to block ‘intolerable’ extradition of Julian Assange

Overview in 2GB (837AM) Mr Carr tells told Alan Jones the situation is “intolerable and creates a really shocking precedent”. “There’s been no voice speaking up in this case and I think Marise Payne has got it within her capacity, within her sphere of influence with the Americans, to have them quietly drop this extradition.” … Continue reading “Bob Carr calls for Australia to block ‘intolerable’ extradition of Julian Assange”

Overview in 2GB (837AM)

Mr Carr tells told Alan Jones the situation is “intolerable and creates a really shocking precedent”.

“There’s been no voice speaking up in this case and I think Marise Payne has got it within her capacity, within her sphere of influence with the Americans, to have them quietly drop this extradition.”

Related

Mark Davis: Who published first and who redacted the files

Mark Davis is a multi-award winning Australian journalist who was an eye-witness to the entire preparation of the Afghan War Logs, submitted in 2010 to Wikileaks by the whistle-blower Chelsea Manning. Davis had documented the process in a film called ‘Inside Wikileaks’, which showed the Wikileaks editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, working alongside journalists from the New … Continue reading “Mark Davis: Who published first and who redacted the files”

Mark Davis is a multi-award winning Australian journalist who was an eye-witness to the entire preparation of the Afghan War Logs, submitted in 2010 to Wikileaks by the whistle-blower Chelsea Manning. Davis had documented the process in a film called ‘Inside Wikileaks’, which showed the Wikileaks editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, working alongside journalists from the New York Times, Guardian & Der Spiegel. At a recent Sydney event entitled ‘Julian Assange & the Alliance against the US Culture of Revenge’, Davis revealed details of the interactions he had never spoken of publicly before.

With the aid of his own archival footage from inside the Guardian’s “bunker”, Davis describes the high level participation of the collaborating news outlets in the creation of the publication the New York Times described as “a six-year archive of classified military documents [that] offers an unvarnished and grim picture of the Afghan war”. It was the Guardian technical team, Davis informs us, that built the searchable database and graphic user interface. His images of Julian Assange and Guardian journalist Nick Davis working together to analyse the “impenetrable data” support his assertion that there was no professional distance whatsoever between the journalists.

With disdain, Davis reveals how the New York Times, presumably to avoid blowback, set Julian Assange up as the unwitting lightening rod by urging his small start-up to “scoop them” and publish first. This would enable the NYT (we hear the late Gavin MacFadyen comment in an exchange with Assange) to simply report on what Wikileaks had published.

Most shocking in these revelations is Mark Davis’s account of how the Guardian journalists neglected and appeared to care little about redacting the documents. They had a “graveyard humour” about people being harmed and no one, he stated emphatically, expressed concern about civilian casualties except Julian Assange. He recalls that Nick Davis, a long-time critic of Assange, had only expressed concern to David Leigh about the the Guardian mentioning a particular name, and being deeply disturbed when Leigh replied: “But we are not publishing this”. Julian Assange had subsequently requested that the release of the Afghan War Logs be delayed for the purpose of redaction, but the Guardian not only insisted on the agreed date, they abandoned him to redact 10,000 documents alone.

The Wikileaks publication was delayed however, due to a technical problem. That is why it came to pass, Davis explains, that the MSN media partners collectively lied for two days to the public about the War Logs having already been published. As it turned out, the New York Times and then the Guardian, were the first to break the story. Of the 91,000 documents submitted by Manning, some 17,000 were withheld from publication to minimise harm to individuals, largely due to the redaction effectuated by Assange.

Davis paints a picture of a “naive” Assange being set up to “walk the plank” and then “fall off the plank”. The second phase of the plan was to condemn him, very much in line with the US’s claim that Wikileaks “had blood on their hands”. It was soon seen to be a false claim however, since no individual had been harmed, and Wikileaks went on to publish Cablegate.

What happened next beggars belief. In January 2011, the Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding published a book entitled: “Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy”, which contained the password to the entire database of un-redacted material. Realising that harm was now certainly on the way, particularly to US informants in Afghanistan, Wikileaks responded by publishing the lot in a manner that would not only be accessible to governments and intelligence agencies. It would give people a chance to escape. The Guardian lashed out again in condemnation of Wikileaks, but the result is that no one to date has been harmed by the publication.

Much more on WiiLeaks / Julian on Consortium News

Video also referenced in Greg Beans article Media dead silent as Wikileaks insider explodes the myths around Julian Assange

The Health of Julian Assange: A Case of State-sponsored Neglect

On 25th February Nine Cross reports It is known that Assange’s removal from Belmarsh healthcare unit was a result of the combined effort by his legal team, public campaigning and a petition lodged by fellow prison inmates. It followed seven months of unofficial segregation in the unit during which he was removed from association without legitimate grounds … Continue reading “The Health of Julian Assange: A Case of State-sponsored Neglect”

On 25th February Nine Cross reports

It is known that Assange’s removal from Belmarsh healthcare unit was a result of the combined effort by his legal team, public campaigning and a petition lodged by fellow prison inmates. It followed seven months of unofficial segregation in the unit during which he was removed from association without legitimate grounds to do so, and in breach of prison rules and legislation.  There was no established reason for this treatment, making it arbitrary, and also deprived Assange of recourse, effectively throwing him into a lawless hole at the whim of the prison authorities. 

It should be noted, however, that despite the fact he has been transferred out of healthcare to a wing where he can associate with others, reports indicate that he is still locked up for most of the time.

The full force of the state apparatus constantly targets Assange while others just pass through

To show the arbitrary and unfair treatment of Assange, we have compared the way Belmarsh has treated him to the way it treated Tommy Robinson, founder of the English Defence League, where Robinson spent nine weeks there last year, officially segregated. In his case, the governor was said to have personally intervened to ensure he did not miss a social visit, and that he had unlimited phone calls between 9am and 11am every morning, according to reports.  In contrast, Assange, an unconvicted prisoner, presumed innocent, has had devastating restrictions of access to his lawyers, was not allowed possession of his legal documents for a prolonged period of time, or the means with which to prepare his defence – all of which are breaches of legislation protecting the rights of the prisoner.

Comparisons can also be made in the way Belmarsh treated multi-millionaire novelist and former Tory MP Lord Jeffrey Archer.  Archer was sentenced to 4 years in 2001 for perjury and perverting the course of justice.  In contrast to Assange, Archer was convicted by a jury. He still retained the title Lord Archer, and was processed as a prisoner through Belmarsh in textbook fashion. Belmarsh, despite being a Category A high security prison, is also a local prison serving courts in South East London and South West Essex,  and is used as a temporary stop for prisoners of all categories.  Usually, after a few months or weeks, men are released or moved to other prisons (more suitable for their category).  According to Archer’s memoirs, on his arrival at Belmarsh following his sentencing, he was visited by the deputy governor who made this whole process clear, reassuring him that normal procedure should for him mean a short stay:

You will be moved onto an induction block tomorrow,’ she assures me, ‘and just as soon as you’ve been categorized A, B, C, or D, we’ll transfer you to another prison. I have no doubt you’ll be Category D – no previous convictions, and no history of violence.’

Due to procedure, he spent his first night in the healthcare unit under suicide watch.  Although only there for one day, Archer was allowed to use the general exercise area, and mix with the other inmates.  He was then moved from healthcare to a wing, and after 3 weeks he was moved to a category D prison. This was textbook processing.

But on arrival at Belmarsh, Julian Assange had no record of violence, or previous convictions, and the offence of skipping a police bail for which Judge Deborah Taylor sentenced him to 50 weeks, thus ignoring the UN decision that he sought asylum, which means it should’ve been a minor offence – much less serious than the crimes of Archer.  Yet, Assange was made a B categoryprisoner and has never left Belmarsh prison, and was unofficially segregated for many months.  He has been denied basic rights as an unconvicted prisoner since being held on remand, including continued restrictions of access to his lawyers which has impaired his ability to prepare for his historic legal defence. Undoubtedly, he is being treated like a terrorist and murderer.

By simply comparing the way the prison authorities processed another high-profile inmate in Lord Archer, we can again see the exceptional vitriol and impunity of the authorities towards Assange.

. . .

The UK has, in theory, committed to the UN standards for the treatment of prisoners.  Yet, where Assange is concerned, it is behaving no differently from the way Bahrain, a Gulf State dictatorship, treats many of its political prisoners – by refusing to recognise their arbitrary detention,  by ignoring identified health needs, and by refusing access to specialist diagnostic assessment and treatment.

Read whole article in 21st Century Wire including an informative interview with GP and Producer of the ‘Great NHS Heist,‘ Dr. Bob Gill

Assange’s father: Lack of power ‘horrifying’

On 26 February Gus McCubbing writes for AAP Separated by bulletproof glass 20 metres away, John Shipton can do nothing but smile or wave as his son stares down a possible extradition to the US and 175 years’ imprisonment. Julian Assange was unwell enough for the Woolwich Crown Court to finish early – at 3.36pm … Continue reading “Assange’s father: Lack of power ‘horrifying’”

On 26 February Gus McCubbing writes for AAP

Separated by bulletproof glass 20 metres away, John Shipton can do nothing but smile or wave as his son stares down a possible extradition to the US and 175 years’ imprisonment.

Julian Assange was unwell enough for the Woolwich Crown Court to finish early – at 3.36pm rather 4pm, according to Mr Shipton – on day two of his extradition hearing in London.

The 48-year-old was on Monday night reportedly handcuffed 11 times and twice strip-searched, as well as having his legal case files confiscated by guards at Belmarsh Prison.

And Mr Shipton, who cannot speak with his son during the week-long hearing as it clashes with the prison’s visiting hours, was forced to watch on from the public gallery as Assange began to appear “a little disturbed or unwell”.

“It’s horrifying for any parent to be powerless in the face of a child’s suffering,” he told AAP over the phone from London.

“I hope this time the prison thought better of strip-searches and unnecessary handcuffings and the dispossessing of the court papers.”

But Mr Shipton said even if Judge Vanessa Baraitser set Assange free, the extradition request could potentially see his son incarcerated for a further five years as each side exhausted its avenues to appeal.

“There’s no ‘good scenario’ to come from this – they’re all bad,” he said.

. . .

“I can’t understand why he’s still in jail and not on bail – his family is here and he’s not well,” Assange’s father said.

“And to continue the smearing and mobbing of Julian by asserting he’s a ‘common criminal’ who conspired with Chelsea Manning to steal is a vile insult.”

. . .

“The trial, I firmly believe, is a fraud upon the court.”

University of Melbourne IT researcher Suelette Dreyfus, who wrote Underground – a 1997 book detailing the lives of elite young hackers – with Julian Assange, said the hearing was a weathervane for media freedom.

“From the criticisms given by the prosecution, clearly the Trump administration would like to shrink those freedoms,” she told AAP on Wednesday.

“So the court proceeding has got a big public interest component.

“But I’m also concerned extradition may be used for political purposes of retaliation against whistleblowers, publishers and journalists.

“It could become a tool of oppression, rather than the tool of justice that was originally envisaged.”

Read full articles in

AAP
7News
The Canberra Times
The Newcastle Star
The Ballarat Courier
The Stawell Times
The Redland City Bulletin
The Katherine Times
The Daily Liberal (Dubbo)
The Wimmera Mail-Times
The Bega District News
The Launceston Examiner
The Mandura Mail
The Western Advocate (Bathurst)
The Namoi Valley Independent
The Campbelltown-Macarthur Advertiser
The Lithglow Mercury
The South Coast Register
The Liverpool Champion
The Inverell Times
The Advertiser (Cessnock)
The Macleay Argus
The Dungog Chronicle
The St George & Sutherland Shire Leader
The Fairfield Champion
The MacKay Star
The Esperance Express
The Islander (Kangaroo Island)
The Busselton-Dunsborough Mail
The Eden Magnet
plus at least 43 other local papers

James Goodale: Stunning How Few In Us Care About Threat Posed By Assange’s Case

On 23rd February 2020 Kevin Gosztola interviews James Goodale James Goodale is one of the more prominent First Amendment lawyers in the United States. He represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case. In 2013, Goodale wrote the book, Fighting For The Press, which outlined the threat to press freedom if President Barack Obama’s … Continue reading “James Goodale: Stunning How Few In Us Care About Threat Posed By Assange’s Case”

On 23rd February 2020 Kevin Gosztola interviews James Goodale

James Goodale is one of the more prominent First Amendment lawyers in the United States. He represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case. In 2013, Goodale wrote the book, Fighting For The Press, which outlined the threat to press freedom if President Barack Obama’s administration prosecuted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

No First Amendment attorney has been as outspoken on what will happen to journalism if the U.S. government successfully extradites Assange and brings him to trial in the U.S. for violating the Espionage Act.

. . .

GOODALE: I have dreaded the beginning of the extradition hearing because I do not want Assange back in this country to be tried under the Espionage Act. So that’s my general point of view. I do not think that he should be tried under the Espionage Act because the act was designed for espionage and not for reporting the truth, which is what Assange did. And I don’t want the law stretched any further than it has already been stretched. 

With respect to the precise nature of the hearing, while the principal issue in the extradition hearing will be whether or not the offense complained of is a political offense and therefore does not hit the middle of the target with respect to the First Amendment, it’s close enough. So I am following that issue very carefully to see how the court will deal with it.

Seems to be, generally speaking, the actions that Assange took were against the interests of the United States, against its political interests, and therefore he is being sent back for a political trial. If, in fact, I’m correct in that and the judge agrees with me, then he can’t be extradited. So that’s quite important. 

A second issue that I’m following is the CIA’s tapping of his phone. It is quite clear that the CIA made a deal with a Spanish security company [inaudible]…to have that Spanish security company videotape and audio tape everything that went on…including importantly Assange’s conversations with his lawyers. 

If you have a conversation with your lawyer and it’s being taped, that is really fundamentally bad. 

More to the point, in terms of the history of the Espionage Act as applied to these proceedings in the United States, Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, was tried under the Espionage Act back in 1973. That prosecution was dismissed because it came to the attention of the court that the “plumbers,” employees who were in the White House under President Richard Nixon’s tutelage, broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.

That is very much the same as breaking into the conversations, and as a consequence, Ellsberg’s trial was dismissed. By analogy, therefore, Assange should not come back to this country because his rights have been completely fouled up.

Third thing I’m following is that the government is taking this very strange position that Assange has no First Amendment rights whatsoever. That position is based on the idea that Assange is not an American citizen and therefore he doesn’t get First Amendment protections. The government has said they’re going to put that into the court. I will be listening carefully as to what exactly that position is.

GOSZTOLA: The case that they tried to bring against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks around the issue of hacked material but we saw a court defend the right of publishing hacked material in the United States and it seems like the political establishment just can’t accept that that is a part of our law.

GOODALE: Well, that’s another good point. That case was decided by my former First Amendment partner, Judge John Koetl. 

He decided the First Amendment applies to Julian Assange in this country, and that Julian Assange’s activities with respect to the release of information concerning the DNC was protected by the First Amendment. That suit was brought by the DNC, and Judge Koetl went out of his way to say that the activities of Assange in releasing that information were fully protected by the First Amendment. 

If the Justice Department is going to succeed in persuading the world that the First Amendment doesn’t apply here, they’re going to have to overrule Judge Koetl’s decision. 

Read whole article in Shadowproof

And a followup article in Shadowproof
John Koetl, a federal judge, dismissed the lawsuit in July 2019. Whether or not WikiLeaks knew the materials were obtained illegally, they were protected by the First Amendment.

Jeffery Sterling: Please tell the whole truth when you reference my case

Fellow whistleblower Jeffery Sterling tweets upon UK Crown prosecutor James Lewis QC referencing his court case as a bench mark in the Assange hearing Wikipedia:Jeffrey Alexander Sterling is an American lawyer and former CIA employee who was arrested, charged, and convicted of violating the Espionage Act for revealing details about Operation Merlin (covert operation to supply Iran with flawed nuclear warhead blueprints) … Continue reading “Jeffery Sterling: Please tell the whole truth when you reference my case”

Fellow whistleblower Jeffery Sterling tweets upon UK Crown prosecutor James Lewis QC referencing his court case as a bench mark in the Assange hearing

Wikipedia:
Jeffrey Alexander Sterling is an American lawyer and former CIA employee who was arrested, charged, and convicted of violating the Espionage Act for revealing details about Operation Merlin (covert operation to supply Iran with flawed nuclear warhead blueprints) to journalist James Risen.[5] The case was based on what the judge called “very powerful circumstantial evidence.”

Peter Mass writes ‘How Jeffrey Sterling Took On The CIA And Lost Everything

Jeffrey Sterling’s book ‘Unwanted Spy, The Persecution of an American Whistleblower’ is available at Bold Type Books

Minister: Do you agree with Nils Milzer ?

Senator Wish-Wilson questions Foreign Minister Senator Marise Paine in Australian federal Parliament 25th February 2020 And his follow up question Editors Note: Apparently the Foreign Minister is as dismissive of Mils Melzer’s reports and commentary as the Governments of Sweden, UK and the USA

Senator Wish-Wilson questions Foreign Minister Senator Marise Paine in Australian federal Parliament 25th February 2020

And his follow up question

Editors Note: Apparently the Foreign Minister is as dismissive of Mils Melzer’s reports and commentary as the Governments of Sweden, UK and the USA

John Shipton: “My Heart is on Fire”

On the 24th February 2020, from Vienna, Von Stefan Schocher reports ( google translation from German) John Shipton on his struggle for support for his son Julian Assange and his visit to Vienna. profil: What do you expect from your meeting at the State Department? Shipton: I will stand up for my son and make … Continue reading “John Shipton: “My Heart is on Fire””

On the 24th February 2020, from Vienna, Von Stefan Schocher reports ( google translation from German)

John Shipton on his struggle for support for his son Julian Assange and his visit to Vienna.

profil: What do you expect from your meeting at the State Department?

Shipton: I will stand up for my son and make it clear that there is a historic change in Europe, for Julian, for free expression and exchange of information in the EU. There were 25 camera teams in Paris yesterday. Before that in London: 23 camera crews. There is increasing support.

profile: Do you get such positive feedback from political or even government circles?
Shipton: The support is huge in Germany. After all, Sigmar Gabriel [the SPD Parliamentarian stands up for Assange] was the Foreign Minister. That there is no voice of contradiction on the part of the government means tacit approval.

profil: You also explore the chances that your son will get asylum in a European country. Where do you have the highest hopes?

Shipton: Let’s start in the middle: Switzerland will offer Julian a humanitarian visa. This is the first official recognition and very important. In the absolute heart of Europe, he could recover from the consequences of his torture and accept visiting professorships across Europe. But I think there will be a competition for who can offer the most protection. That’s how it should be. After ten years of working at the interface between governments and information, he still has a lot to give.

profil: What is the goal of your mission?

Shipton: I am now in Vienna to advertise in the State Department that Austria will become part of the global movement that wants Julian to be released – as an icon of oppression by journalists, media or publicists. The oppression of journalists is a global problem. And if it is not solved, it will determine the taste and smell of the coming century.

profile: What is Julian Assange’s health and mental state?

Shipton: I can only comment on my own mental state. His state of health is a problem after nine years of increasing psychological torture, as Nils Melzer [UN Special Rapporteur on Torture] highlighted in his report. Julian is an intellectual, a sensitive person, but just one with a very strong will. And he’s in a high security prison along side terrorists and murderers.

profile: Edward Fitzgerald, your son’s lawyer, says the U.S. government has offered a pardon if Julian Assange rejects Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election campaign. If there was this offer, why didn’t he accept it?

Shipton: I don’t know. I don’t know the facts. I think the hearing next week will bring clarification in many ways.

profil: WikiLeaks published emails surrounding Trump’s competitor Hillary Clinton in the middle of the 2016 election campaign. It had the smell of a Kremlin action. How does your son see it

Shipton: I reject your question. None of Julian’s actions were in the spirit of Vladimir Putin. Everything that is published on WikiLeaks comes from the population. Julian is pro truth. He verifies everything that is published very carefully and does everything to protect the sources.

profile: Should your son find asylum – will he continue?

Shipton: WikiLeaks is a robust global news organization with a reputation for being accurate and reputable.

profile: The case against WikiLeaks is not just a criminal case, but has immense political implications. Do you think the geopolitical conditions for political support from Europe are favorable? The transatlantic relationship has broken. Asylum for Julian Assange will not improve it.

Shipton: It was a political case from the start. I like Europe very much. Vienna is wonderful, Paris is great, Geneva is fantastic – I would love to live there, but I cannot afford it. I want Europe to be steadfast in its relations with Washington instead of steadfastly on Washington’s call. Strength and independence mean that you can make good decisions and take responsibility for them. I wish that for Europe. My heart is burning when I see that the EU is not representing the interests of its citizens.

John Shipton

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s father is currently traveling through the EU to campaign for his son to be granted asylum in a European country. On Friday he was in Vienna for a talk at the Foreign Ministry. profil met the Australian for an interview immediately before – a quiet man who ponders his words and chooses wisely. Only at the end of the conversation Shipton warns to hurry. Before the appointment at Minoritenplatz, he has to quickly get a tie.

Full article in German in profil