Wallraff Prize winner 2022 Julian Assange

On the 19th May 2022, Birgit Wentzien writes on Stella Morris accepting the Günter Wallraff Prize 2022 for Journalism Criticism on behalf of Julian Assange (Google Translation) Julian Assange has been awarded the Günter Wallraff Prize 2022. His wife Stella Morris accepted the award on May 19, 2022 at the Cologne Forum for Journalism Criticism on … Continue reading “Wallraff Prize winner 2022 Julian Assange”

On the 19th May 2022, Birgit Wentzien writes on Stella Morris accepting the Günter Wallraff Prize 2022 for Journalism Criticism on behalf of Julian Assange (Google Translation)

Julian Assange has been awarded the Günter Wallraff Prize 2022. His wife Stella Morris accepted the award on May 19, 2022 at the Cologne Forum for Journalism Criticism on behalf of her husband, who is being held in London. In the following we document the laudatory speech by Birgit Wentzien, editor-in-chief of Deutschlandfunk.

Spy, traitor, enemy of the state – freedom fighter, activist, investigative journalist. It depends who you ask. No this can not be.

Julian Assange published secret documents from governments, companies and organizations via the Wikileaks disclosure platform. Files from the US Guantanamo detention center, diplomatic emails and evidence of war crimes in Iraq.

Making grievances public is a core task of journalism. That is exactly what Julian Assange did. He has published secret documents leaked to him by his sources. But he did not collect or steal these documents himself. Should Julian Assange be convicted for this, it would set a global precedent and act as a deterrent to reporters around the world.”Julian Assange affects us all.” For the US Attorney’s Office, Assange is not a journalist. When asked if he would describe Assange as a high-tech terrorist or a whistleblower, Joe Biden, then US Vice President, replied, “I would say he’s a high-tech terrorist.”

What happens to us when we don’t dare anymore to call a spade a spade? Accepting this is self-abandonment – ​​of democracy, freedom of opinion and freedom of the press. Period. In “Truth and Politics”, Hannah Arendt speaks of a double danger to which democratic societies are exposed. One danger is the systematic blurring of the distinction between truth and lies. And the other danger is the temptation to close your eyes and ears to uncomfortable truths.Freedom of expression is a farce when information about the facts is not guaranteed. Freedom of expression begins where the facts are clear. Journalists cannot report on a war that shouldn’t be one. A war is a war. And the other way around and also with Hannah Arendt: “Where lies are lied to on principle and not just occasionally, the one who simply says what is, has already started to act.”

In 2020, Günter Wallraff initiated an appeal for the release of Julian Assange from prison – for medical and constitutional reasons. Günter Wallraff says: “It’s not just about Julian Assange himself, but about defending freedom of expression and freedom of the press. If journalists and whistleblowers have to fear that they will pay for the disclosure of state crimes with imprisonment or their lives, then the fourth estate and with it democracy are in danger.”
The Günter Wallraff Prize 2022 goes to Julian Assange and it is a great honor and pleasure for us that Stella Moris is accepting this prize here in Cologne.
A warm welcome and thanks, and please accept the award for your husband, but also for your own actions and work in this matter that is so important to all of us.

Read original article in Deutschlandfunk

Priti Patel, Hear This Loud and Clear: Julian Assange Must Not be Handed Over to the US

On the 10th May 2022, Duncan Campbell, posted his opinion in The Guardian A decision from the home secretary is imminent. Extradition would set a disastrous precedent Priti Patel now has to make one of the most important decisions of her career: will she bow to heavy pressure from the United States and send a … Continue reading “Priti Patel, Hear This Loud and Clear: Julian Assange Must Not be Handed Over to the US”

On the 10th May 2022, Duncan Campbell, posted his opinion in The Guardian

A decision from the home secretary is imminent. Extradition would set a disastrous precedent

Priti Patel now has to make one of the most important decisions of her career: will she bow to heavy pressure from the United States and send a vulnerable man who has been convicted of no crime to face an indeterminate number of years in an American jail where he may experience intimidation and isolation? Her decision is imminent and all other legal avenues have been explored.

This was the scenario 10 years ago in the case of Gary McKinnon, the computer hacker who, working out of his north London bedroom, trawled through the computer systems of Nasa and the US defence department in search of information about UFOs and left behind some mildly rude messages about the systems’ sloppy security. The home secretary was Theresa May, who halted extradition proceedings at the last minute.

Now Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and also a vulnerable man – who has been in Belmarsh high-security prison for three years without being convicted of any crime – is facing extradition, with the issue due to be decided this month. Once again, the home secretary has an opportunity to demonstrate, as May did, that respect for justice and humanity are much finer and more enduring qualities than appeasement.

It is worth recalling the words of party leaders in support of McKinnon after Labour home secretaries – to their great shame – declined to intervene in the years after his initial arrest in 2002. Nick Clegg, then leading the Liberal Democrats in opposition, said that McKinnon “has been hung out to dry by a British government desperate to appease its American counterparts”. David Cameron, before he became prime minister, had said: “McKinnon is a vulnerable young man and I see no compassion in sending him thousands of miles away from his home and loved ones to face trial.” 

The current case is different in that, while McKinnon remained at liberty, Assange has been held in custody alongside murderers and terrorists after the seven years he spent in the Ecuadorian embassy, seeking political asylum. He should have been given bail long ago to be with his wife, Stella Moris, whom he married in prison in March, and their two young children; he could simply be electronically tagged and monitored. It is also different in that he faces charges under the Espionage Act which carries a potential sentence of 175 years. And yes, the US criminal justice system does actually impose such medieval sentences.

Last year, at the Summit for Democracy, Joe Biden pledged to support a free press: “It’s the bedrock of democracy. It’s how the public stay informed and how governments are held accountable. Around the world, press freedom is under threat.” As it happens, it is 50 years since Daniel Ellsberg was being prosecuted under a similar law to the ones Assange faces for releasing the Pentagon Papers which exposed the lies and hypocrisies of the Vietnam war. He is one of Assange’s staunchest supporters. This week he told me that “this extradition would mean that journalists, anywhere in the world, could be extradited to the US for exposing information classified in the US”. He argues that it would also set a precedent that any reporter could be extradited to other countries for exposing information classified in those countries.Advertisement

Assange also has the backing of all organisations that battle on behalf of freedom of expression, from Amnesty International to Reporters Without Borders. As Julia Hall of Amnesty International puts it: “Demanding that states like the UK extradite people for publishing classified information that is in the public interest sets a dangerous precedent and must be rejected.” 

In March, the justice secretary, Dominic Raab, told the Daily Mail of plans for a new bill of rights: “We’ve got to be able to strengthen free speech, the liberty that guards all of our other freedoms, and stop it being whittled away surreptitiously, sometimes without us really being conscious of it.” How empty those words will be if Assange is extradited.

It was, after all, thanks to WikiLeaks and Assange that the world saw the secret video of a US aircrew falsely claiming to have encountered a firefight in Baghdad and then laughing after their airstrike killed a dozen people, including two Iraqi journalists. Should our ability to see that footage be “whittled away surreptitiously”?

Another Assange advocate is Janis Sharp, McKinnon’s mother, who fought so gallantly on his behalf – a battle now being made into a film. “Ten years’ loss of liberty is surely more than long enough for an extremely ill, autistic man, a whistleblower who shared information of a war crime that he felt was in the public interest to know,” she told me. “Seeing my own son Gary McKinnon suicidal and in permanent mental torment through the terror of proposed extradition, leaves me in no doubt that much-needed compassion must be brought to bear in this very lengthy tragic case.”

Patel has an important choice, but it is not difficult. Extradition should be resisted. Assange should be released and allowed to resume a normal life. Anyone who seriously values freedom of expression should support his fight.

Read original article in The Guardian

Assange Dao

In February 2022 a collective of cypherpunks launched a fund raising initiative for justice for Julian The mission of the AssangeDAO is to inspire a powerful solidarity network and fight for the freedom of Julian Assange. We will raise funds to help with his legal fees and campaigns to increase public awareness on the systemic … Continue reading “Assange Dao”

In February 2022 a collective of cypherpunks launched a fund raising initiative for justice for Julian

The mission of the AssangeDAO is to inspire a powerful solidarity network and fight for the freedom of Julian Assange. We will raise funds to help with his legal fees and campaigns to increase public awareness on the systemic failure of our justice systems.

We, the cypherpunks, are rallying to the cause of a fellow cypherpunk in distress.

‘One of the best ways to achieve justice is to expose injustice.’
— Assange

Proceeds raised from the NFT sale will benefit Julian Assange’s defense fund for legal fees and campaigning to raise awareness about Julian’s extradition case. The Assange family have worked closely with the DAO and endorses its efforts to unite cypherpunks all over the world.

Web Site : https://assangedao.org
Twitter : https://twitter.com/AssangeDAO
Fund Raising: https://juicebox.money/#/p/assangedao

Current Funds Raised $USD 45 million

An archive of Julian’s messages to the cypherpunk mailing list, 1995-98 to 2001-02: https://cryptome.org/0001/assange-cpunks.htm

Julian Assange Has a Stroke in Belmarsh Prison

On 12 December 2021, Sarah Oliver reported in The Daily Mail Julian Assange has had a stroke in Belmarsh Prison, his fiancee Stella Moris revealed last night. The WikiLeaks publisher, 50, who is being held on remand in the maximum-security jail while fighting extradition to America, was left with a drooping right eyelid, memory problems and … Continue reading “Julian Assange Has a Stroke in Belmarsh Prison”

On 12 December 2021, Sarah Oliver reported in The Daily Mail

Julian Assange has had a stroke in Belmarsh Prison, his fiancee Stella Moris revealed last night.

The WikiLeaks publisher, 50, who is being held on remand in the maximum-security jail while fighting extradition to America, was left with a drooping right eyelid, memory problems and signs of neurological damage.

He believes the mini-stroke was triggered by the stress of the ongoing US court action against him, and an overall decline in his health as he faces his third Christmas behind bars.

It happened at the time of a High Court appearance via video link from Belmarsh in October.

A ‘transient ischaemic attack’ – the interruption of the blood supply to the brain – can be a warning sign of a full stroke. Assange has since had an MRI scan and is now taking anti-stroke medication.

Ms Moris, 38, a lawyer, said: ‘Julian is struggling and I fear this mini-stroke could be the precursor to a more major attack. It compounds our fears about his ability to survive the longer this long legal battle goes on. 

‘It urgently needs to be resolved. Look at animals trapped in cages in a zoo. It cuts their life short. That’s what’s happening to Julian. The never-ending court cases are extremely stressful mentally.’ 

She said he was kept in his cell for long periods and was ‘short of fresh air and sunlight, an adequate diet and the stimulus he needs’.

But Ms Moris said: ‘I believe this constant chess game, battle after battle, the extreme stress, is what caused Julian’s stroke on October 27. 

He was feeling really unwell, far too ill to follow the hearing, and he was excused by the judge but could not leave the prison video room.

‘It must have been horrendous hearing a High Court appeal in which you can’t participate, which is discussing your mental health and your risk of suicide and in which the US is arguing you are making it all up. 

‘He had to sit through all this when he should have been excused. He was in a truly terrible state. His eyes were out of synch, his right eyelid would not close, his memory was blurry.’

Assange was examined by a doctor, who found a delayed pupil response when a light was shone into one eye – a sign of potential nerve damage.

Ms Moris and Assange have two sons, Gabriel, four, and Max, two, and have been engaged for five years. She said he had ‘more or less’ recovered – but she fears the attack shows his health is failing.

She visited him for around an hour yesterday, taking the children to see him in a prison hall shared by dozens of inmates and their loved ones.

She said Assange was distressed about being kept from his family, adding: ‘He finds the prospect of a third Christmas in prison difficult.’

Assange was examined by a doctor, who found a delayed pupil response when a light was shone into one eye – a sign of potential nerve damage.

Ms Moris and Assange have two sons, Gabriel, four, and Max, two, and have been engaged for five years. She said he had ‘more or less’ recovered – but she fears the attack shows his health is failing.

She visited him for around an hour yesterday, taking the children to see him in a prison hall shared by dozens of inmates and their loved ones.

She said Assange was distressed about being kept from his family, adding: ‘He finds the prospect of a third Christmas in prison difficult.’

Read original article in The Daily Mail

The Australian Broadcasting Commission Posts Three Times More Articles About Alexei Navalny than Julian Assange Year to Date

On the 31st of October 2021 the editors reviewed the potential for news bias by the ABC ( Australian Broadcasting Commission ) A quick review of ABC articles referring to Alexei Navalny counts 51 articles referencing Alexei Navalny by name A similar review of ABC articles referring to Julian Assange shows 17 articles referencing Julian Assange … Continue reading “The Australian Broadcasting Commission Posts Three Times More Articles About Alexei Navalny than Julian Assange Year to Date”

On the 31st of October 2021 the editors reviewed the potential for news bias by the ABC ( Australian Broadcasting Commission )

A quick review of ABC articles referring to Alexei Navalny counts 51 articles referencing Alexei Navalny by name

A similar review of ABC articles referring to Julian Assange shows 17 articles referencing Julian Assange name being
January 7
February 1
March 1
July 3
August 2
October 5
With the months with more articles coinciding with court hearings

The reporting of the CIA Kidnapping and Assassination plot was posted on the ABC on October 1 and first published on Yahoo News on the 26th September. This was prompted by a letter from prominent Australian to the Prime Minster and not based on outrage at the US Government plotting against an Australian citizen

The editors found no report in the ABC on the retraction of crucial evidence by Sigurdur Ingi (Siggi) Thordarson as published in the Icelandic paper Stundin on the 7th September.

The ABC is slightly more balanced than the British Guardian with nearly 5 times the articles in favour of Navalny (78 to 16 articles)

Of interest is is that Claire Daly, Irish MEP, addressed the European Parliament Nalvany saying ‘Navalny is a vicious anti-immigration racist on maybe 4% of the population support rallying support of hundreds or thousands in cities with populations of millions. We would not be discussing if not raised in Russia. Meanwhile Julian Assange has been incarcerated for almost ten years and we cannot mention his name.’

And Julian Assange is an Australian citizen and a world famous journalist.

While the ABC has a track record of autonomy ad news worthy reporting to bring the Government and big business to account and many issues. There appears a definite blind spot for the Australian citizen Julian Assange.

In his own words: Assange witness explains fabrications

On the 7th September Icelandic newspaper Stundin publishes an interview with Sigurdur Ingi (Siggi) Thordarson by Bjartmar Oddur Þeyr Alexandersson and Gunnar Hrafn Jansson A maj­or wit­n­ess in the United States’ Depart­ment of Justice ca­se against Ju­li­an Assange casts ser­i­ous dou­bt on statements found in the indict­ment against the Wiki­leaks found­er. As Stundin previously reported, a key witness … Continue reading “In his own words: Assange witness explains fabrications”

On the 7th September Icelandic newspaper Stundin publishes an interview with Sigurdur Ingi (Siggi) Thordarson by Bjartmar Oddur Þeyr Alexandersson and Gunnar Hrafn Jansson

A maj­or wit­n­ess in the United States’ Depart­ment of Justice ca­se against Ju­li­an Assange casts ser­i­ous dou­bt on statements found in the indict­ment against the Wiki­leaks found­er.

As Stundin previously reported, a key witness in the case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabrications and thus cast serious doubt on statements found in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. We can now share audio recordings of that witness, Sigurdur Ingi (Siggi) Thordarson, where he discusses his part in the case and what originally led him to entangle himself in an FBI investigation while he was a delinquent teenager on a crime spree.

The excerpts presented here are taken from over nine hours of audio recordings of Thordarson willingly discussing his crimes and deceptions with Stundin’s reporter. 

One issue, that was raised in the updated indictment against Assange presented to UK courts for the purposes of seeking extradition to the United States, is the claim that he received audio files containing secret recordings of members of the Icelandic parliament. 

Thordarson, known also as Siggi, now says he handed Assange a USB drive in early 2010 but had no knowledge of what was on it. He did not even know if there were any actual audio files on the drive, much less what such files may have contained. This appears to contradict the indictment, where Siggi Thordarson is cited as a source.

Reporter: “You also sent it to Julian?”

Siggi: “Yes, well, I gave him a memory stick.”

Reporter: “A memory stick with the conversations on it?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: ”OK. So he received these phone calls?”

Siggi: “At least he received some files. I never listened to them so I have no idea what was on there.”

Reporter: “You didn’t feel like checking it out to hear it? How large was this file?”

Siggi: “I don’t remember, I was doing something at the time so I thought I’d just throw it at Julian and he’d go over it.”

Reporter: “OK, but how large was this file? How large was the memory stick, was it like 16 gigabytes or 2 gigabytes?”

Siggi: “No, no, it would have been on a 34 or 64 gigabyte stick.”

The UK judge cited this part of the indictment in the judgment over extradition, saying Thordarson was asked by Assange: “…to hack into computers to obtain information including audio recordings of phone conversations between high-ranking officials, including members of the Parliament, of the government of “NATO country 1” [Note: Here the prosecution claims that Assange is not charged for receiving or publishing information offered to him, but rather that he actively sought out information. As an example of this, the prosecution claims that the parliament call recording incident was an attempt to obtain the data through hacking.] 

When confronted, Thordarson admits this is not true but claims he is not allowed to elaborate on why the indictment does not match his purported testimony.

Reporter: “Did you tell the FBI that…”

Siggi: “That I hacked them? No.”

Reporter: “…and that Assange asked you to hack them?”

Siggi: “No.”

Reporter: “Then why does the indictment claim you said that?”

Siggi: “I can’t answer that.”

Reporter: “Is it because you don’t want to, or is it because of the FBI you can’t answer?”

Siggi: “I can’t answer that.”

Reporter: “Why can’t you answer?”

Siggi: “Because I’m not allowed to.”

Thordarson was recently called in to provide further testimony on the case in the United States. He says he cannot go into details about his trip but the focus of the discussion was on new information, rather than confirming what he had claimed before.

Siggi: “There were a lot of questions that had never been raised before, so that wouldn’t have made sense.”

Reporter: “OK, so there was an attempt to open a new line of investigation as my sources claim?”

Siggi: “A new line?”

Reporter: “In other words, they were looking into other subjects than they had previously done with you?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “And those subjects pertained to extending the investigation into different areas than contained in this indictment?”

Siggi: “I couldn’t say.”

Reporter: “You couldn’t say or you aren’t allowed to say?”

Siggi: “Either one.” *laughs*

Reporter: “You have to choose one, Siggi! You have to pick an option!”

Siggi: “I can’t comment on that.”

Reporter: “So you aren’t allowed to comment?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

The FBI has access to communications between Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, as they seized computer equipment belonging to the latter when she was arrested. In one conversation Assange mentions receiving documents relating to the collapse of the Icelandic banking system. The collapse was a direct result of reckless and even criminal actions by top-level bankers, and Wikileaks had exposed similar wrongdoing at another Icelandic bank two years earlier.

Thordarson has now revealed himself to be the source mentioned in the chat log between Manning and Assange. However, he simply laughed and declined to go on the record when asked how he managed to steal the documents from under the noses of the resolution committee of the failed bank Glitnir.

Reporter: “On the 5th of March 2010 Assange said to Manning that he had acquired stolen bank documents from a source, that source was in fact you?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “What bank documents are those?”

Siggi: “From Milestone and Glitnir and…”

Reporter: “OK, those are the Milestone documents you had taken with a memory stick that you just used to take it from their computer, right? The computer was open, wasn’t it?”

Siggi: “I don’t remember. But these are documents that pertain to…”

Reporter: “But these are the documents you took, the Milestone…”

Siggi: “Yeah, he was talking about those.”

Reporter: “OK, but is he talking about something more than that? Because…

Siggi: “Yeah, because I had and still have Glitnir bank’s loan book that was never published. I also had a file that was Landsbanki’s loan book but it was encrypted. I was going to get David House to see if he could use this supercomputer at MIT to encr… decrypt it.”

Reporter: “Decrypt it. That’s the file that was floating around everywhere online? Everyone was trying to decrypt it, it had already been downloaded…”

Siggi: “Indeed.”

Reporter: “What about the Glitnir loan book, where did that come from?”

Siggi: “Ahaha… I’ll tell you that off the record.”

Thordarson is a well known fraudster in Iceland and appears to have made his living through the years by cheating and stealing from a long list of local companies. As part of his fraudulent schemes he ran an online store with Wikileaks merchandise in 2010 and claimed to be raising money for the organization. However, it all went into his personal bank account and he refuses to say what he did with the money he stole from Wikileaks.

Reporter: “I’m a little curious to know where that went…”

Siggi: “I’ll let you know as soon as I find out, haha!” 

Reporter: “OK, so you got the money deposited into your bank account, right?”

Siggi: “Indeed.”

Reporter: “We can go off the record if you want?”

Siggi: “Doesn’t matter, I admitted to it in court. But you see the store was and always had been in my name.”

Members of the Wikileaks organization eventually became aware of what was happening and tried desperately to find Thordarson and recover the money. He was also wanted for various other crimes in Iceland, including financial fraud and sexual abuse of minors. It was at this time he decided to walk into the United States embassy in Reykjavík and offer testimony against Assange in exchange for protection. However, this inadvertently put him in even more trouble.

Thordarson had previously been in contact with the infamous hacking collective known as Lulzec, headed by a person using the alias Sabu. What Thordarson did not know at the time was that Sabu had been arrested by the FBI and turned informant only a month earlier. By asking Sabu to hack Icelandic government sites Thordarson had so thoroughly incriminated himself that US authorities had him in a vice. He says officials told him he faced a lengthy prison sentence if he didn’t cooperate fully.

Reporter: “They just say to you, here’s the situation, and they lay it out.”

Siggi: “Yup.”

Reporter: “And that didn’t paint a pretty picture according to my sources.”

Siggi: “Indeed.”

Reporter: “They were perhaps even pointing out that you were headed to prison imminently if you didn’t answer the FBIs questions and work with the FBI on this. You are panicking at that point.”

Siggi: “I don’t look at it as a threat. Stating the obvious isn’t necessarily a threat.”

Reporter: “Look… it feels like the Icelandic police were telling you that they would make the charges in Iceland disappear.”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “…and the FBI would make the American charges disappear? So by making an immunity deal with the Americans you would be off the hook for anything that could cause you problems back home?”

Siggi: “Huh. That’s news to me.”

It appears the deal was for Thordarson to provide statements that could strengthen the indictment against Assange, in exchange for total immunity. He would get away with his crimes, as he himself put it.

Reporter: “You were the small fry, you knew they wanted the big fish, and you provided everything to help them catch the big fish.” 

Siggi: “Yeah. I agree with that portrayal, that’s the way it was. But the idea when I was there back in the summer of 2011 or whatever, that wasn’t the idea. I had just been backed into a massive corner and I folded.”

Reporter: “OK, but you can see that from my point of view this story is full of holes.”  

Siggi: “Sure.”

Reporter: “The amount of pressure you are under, mental and physical, from the FBI. If you aren’t cooperating 110% you are simply f—ked.”

Siggi: “They would have already revoked this immunity deal if I was lying.”

Reporter: “Is that really so?” 

Siggi: “Yes!”

Reporter: “Because they are basing a lot on just your word.”

Siggi: “It’s stated many times in my agreement that if I were to be caught out lying, just one false word, the immunity agreement would be revoked. And they could proceed with prosecuting me. There is nothing in the indictment about what evidence they have, the justice system doesn’t require that to be public.” 

Reporter: “Actually that is part of discovery…”

Siggi: “When it goes to court.”

Reporter: “Sure, but…”

Siggi: “There you have an indictment that will be added to later. 

Reporter: “Yes, but still, if they can’t get him extradited from the UK they have no case.”

Siggi: “The [UK] judge didn’t refuse extradition based on the evidence of the case, it was for health reasons.”

Reporter: “Exactly.”

Siggi: “Are you trying to tell me they wouldn’t just immediately request extradition from whatever country he would travel to next? The only thing that can save Julian now is if Joe Biden blows the whole thing off.”

Reporter: “What would happen to you in that case?”

Siggi: “I don’t know.”

Reporter: “I mean if the US attorney general says the investigation is over and nothing further will be done, because Biden says so, what happens to you?”

Siggi: “I have an immunity agreement, it wouldn’t be invalidated.”

Reporter: “Even if the case is dismissed?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “So you get away with all your crimes?”

Siggi: “That is my understanding.”

It is not clear to what extent the Icelandic authorities were informed about these arrangements, if at all. Indeed Thordarson claims he was assured by the FBI that no information would be shared with the Icelandic police about crimes he committed in Iceland, particularly the hacking attempts against Icelandic institutions.

Siggi: “My worry was that if I told them who was hacked and how, like Landsvirkjun and the government’s website and all that, I would become a target of Icelandic authorities.”

Reporter: “Why?”

Siggi: “Eventually I asked if they [Icelandic authorities] would get access to the data I talked about and they [the FBI] just said no, that would never happen. That was the only discussion I had with the FBI about Icelandic authorities.”

Thordarson is now 28 but was a teenager when he volunteered to work for Wikileaks a decade ago. He claims to hold no personal ill will against Julian Assange but regrets getting involved in “this adventure” as he puts it. Thordarson says he suffers from extreme anxiety and insomnia as a result of his experiences and does not fully trust the FBI or the American justice department to keep up their end of the deal, but is hopeful they will. 

Siggi: “Of course they can fuck me up! Of course they can. In that case it’s just a ball I’ll tackle when it gets to me, I can’t be bothered to think about it beforehand.”

Reporter: “It’s a pretty big ball, Siggi!”

Siggi: “For sure! I won’t deny that, not at all. But will it help me to worry about it at this point? No. 

Reporter: “Do you have anxiety about the [Assange] case being dropped?”

Siggi: “About what will happen?”

Reporter: “Yes.”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “So the prospect of Julian being a free man, it gives you anxiety?” 

Siggi: “Him being free? I would celebrate that.”

Reporter: “Ok, but…”

Siggi: “As far as the impact on me personally, we’ll just have to find out.”

Reporter: “OK, I know you and Julian had a very close relationship.”

Siggi: “Mhm.”

Reporter: “You do realize this testimony could cost him his life.”

Siggi: “I do.”

Reporter: “How does that make you feel?”

Siggi: “What we’re dealing with there is that you shouldn’t just bring a 17 or 18 year old boy into something like this.”

Reporter: “Are you angry at him?”

Siggi: “No.”

Reporter: “Do you feel hurt?”

Siggi: “No.”

Reporter: “What are your feelings toward Julian today?”

Siggi: “I… don’t know.”

He elaborates, saying the entire thing felt unreal and more like a computer simulation than real life at the time.

Siggi: “It’s no secret that I was *** scared out of my mind. Like I have said many times, an 18 year old teenager doesn’t have any clue what he is doing. You’re not playing a fucking video game, you aren’t playing The Sims or Black… what is… what is the one, I don’t play video games and don’t know the names. Call of Duty?”

Reporter: “It’s actually damn good.”

Siggi: “OK! But what I mean is you don’t realize it. And that is the worst part, I still don’t comprehend it today. It wasn’t like we were publishing something in the school paper.”

Reporter: “No, what you published was the real deal.”

Siggi: “Exactly. And that’s what one doesn’t realize.”

Reporter: “But do you feel like you did something wrong by publishing these documents? Do you think it was wrong?” 

Siggi: “Hm. Today, I would say yes.

He elaborates, saying the entire thing felt unreal and more like a computer simulation than real life at the time.

Siggi: “It’s no secret that I was *** scared out of my mind. Like I have said many times, an 18 year old teenager doesn’t have any clue what he is doing. You’re not playing a fucking video game, you aren’t playing The Sims or Black… what is… what is the one, I don’t play video games and don’t know the names. Call of Duty?”

Reporter: “It’s actually damn good.”

Siggi: “OK! But what I mean is you don’t realize it. And that is the worst part, I still don’t comprehend it today. It wasn’t like we were publishing something in the school paper.”

Reporter: “No, what you published was the real deal.”

Siggi: “Exactly. And that’s what one doesn’t realize.”

Reporter: “But do you feel like you did something wrong by publishing these documents? Do you think it was wrong?” 

Siggi: “Hm. Today, I would say yes.

Convicted for sex crimes against minors

Apart from his well documented and extensive financial fraud against Wikileaks and many companies in Iceland, he has also been convicted of sex crimes against nine under-age boys who he deceived and coerced into giving him sexual favours. Five other similar cases were dropped due to lack of evidence. One of the victims committed suicide after prosecutors dropped charges specifically related to his abuse. Thordarson, who was diagnosed with sociopathy by a court-appointed psychiatrist, claims to be haunted by these events.

Reporter: “We are talking about a boy who felt like you had abused him.”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “His case was dropped.”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “He was denied justice.”

Siggi: “Indeed.”

Reporter: “He then commits suicide. I’m not saying you are solely responsible for that but you do bear some responsibility.”

Siggi: “I know that. Believe me, I know. 100%. I even tried to talk to the state prosecutor and asked, for sake of argument, if this case could be addressed to bring it to a close. They said no.”  

Reporter: “Do you think you should have been convicted on the five charges that were dropped?”

Siggi: “Well, some of those cases that were dropped were just ridiculous. One of them was about a message I sent to someone on MSN asking if he wanted to have sex. But the boy who killed himself, his case should have gone forward.”

Reporter: “You made extravagant promises to him, you don’t remember? You promised him a monthly salary of a million króna [$7.800]. All he had to do was sleep with you.”

Siggi: “Yeah.”

Reporter: “And if he didn’t want to sleep with you any more he could keep the money, you’d sign a contract to that effect. You remember this?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “You were bullshitting him, you didn’t have that kind of money.”

Siggi: “No, but it was still just prostitution. That’s what it is, legally speaking.”

Reporter: “I didn’t ask about the legal definition.”

Siggi: “But according to my conviction that’s…”

Reporter: “I know that. But I’m asking how you feel about this, personally.”

Siggi: “Right now? I think it’s ridiculous. 

Reporter: “This goes beyond prostitution, doesn’t it? I don’t mean in the legal sense, I’m just talking about how it feels on a personal level. You pressuring this young boy, who was saving up to buy himself a flat. 

Reporter: “I mean, you promised him a computer, which you did indeed provide. But, I mean, you are pressuring him a great deal and he’s not even gay.” 

Siggi: “No, but he had the choice to say no.”

Reporter: “He did say no.”

Siggi: “OK.”

Reporter: “Yet you continued.”

Siggi: “OK. That’s how you hit on people, ya know?”

Read original article in Stundin

Jailing of Assange: the End of Press Freedom

Online discussion live streamed 5th September 2021 Journalist Support Committee (JSC) Cordially invite you to join our online discussion in solidarity with unlawfully imprisoned Journalist Julian Assange titled: Jailing of Assange: the End of Press Freedom 🗣 keynote Speakers: 👤DR DEEPA DRIVER Trade Unionists, Academic 👤 NIKI KONSTANTINIDOU Barrister and Solicitor 👤 RICHARD LAHUIS Photojournalist 👤 TAYLOR HUDAK Journalist 👤 DANIEL O’BRIEN Moderator ⏰ Sunday … Continue reading “Jailing of Assange: the End of Press Freedom”

Online discussion live streamed 5th September 2021

Journalist Support Committee (JSC) Cordially invite you to join our online discussion in solidarity with unlawfully imprisoned Journalist Julian Assange titled:

Jailing of Assange: the End of Press Freedom

🗣 keynote Speakers:

👤DR DEEPA DRIVER Trade Unionists, Academic

👤 NIKI KONSTANTINIDOU Barrister and Solicitor

👤 RICHARD LAHUIS Photojournalist

👤 TAYLOR HUDAK Journalist

👤 DANIEL O’BRIEN Moderator

⏰ Sunday 05 September 2021, 18:00 PM London time

📡 The conference will be live-Streamed on the following YouTube channel, https://www.youtube.com/c/JSCPRESS

➡️ Follow us on Facebook for past and forthcoming events, https://www.facebook.com/JSCPRESS/

Thank you for your support and for sharing our event.

Yaser Al-Sayegh ( General Secretary)
email: yaser@journalistsupport.net

Gabriel Shipton talks to Daniel Hale on behalf of Julian Assange

On the 27th July 2021, Gabriel Shipton talked to Daniel Hale who had just been sentenced to 45 months (under a plea bargain) under the Espionage Act for release information about undisclosed level of civilian casualties inflicted by the US killer drone strikes. Also thoughts for Edward Snowden The Esponiage Act excludes consideration of motive. … Continue reading “Gabriel Shipton talks to Daniel Hale on behalf of Julian Assange”

On the 27th July 2021, Gabriel Shipton talked to Daniel Hale who had just been sentenced to 45 months (under a plea bargain) under the Espionage Act for release information about undisclosed level of civilian casualties inflicted by the US killer drone strikes.

Also thoughts for Edward Snowden

The Esponiage Act excludes consideration of motive. However his letter to Judge Liam O’Grady is in the public domain and reads

Dear Judge O’Grady,

It is not a secret that I struggle to live with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Both stem from my childhood experience growing up in a rural mountain community and were compounded by exposure to combat during military service. Depression is a constant. Though stress, particularly stress caused by war, can manifest itself at different times and in different ways. The tell-tale signs of a person afflicted by PTSD and depression can often be outwardly observed and are practically universally recognizable. Hard lines about the face and jaw. Eyes, once bright and wide, now deepset and fearful. And an inexplicably sudden loss of interest in things that used to spark joy. These are the noticeable changes in my demeanor marked by those who knew me before and after military service. To say that the period of my life spent serving in the United States Air Force had an impression on me would be an understatement. It is more accurate to say that it irreversibly transformed my identity as an American. Having forever altered the thread of my life’s story, weaved into the fabric of our nation’s history. To better appreciate the significance of how this came to pass, I would like to explain my experience deployed to Afghanistan as it was in 2012 and how it is I came to violate the Espionage Act, as a result.

In my capacity as a signals intelligence analyst stationed at Bagram Airbase, I was made to track down the geographic location of handset cellphone devices believed to be in the possession of so-called enemy combatants. To accomplish this mission required access to a complex chain of globe-spanning satellites capable of maintaining an unbroken connection with remotely piloted aircraft, commonly referred to as drones. Once a steady connection is made and a targeted cell phone device is acquired, an imagery analyst in the U.S., in coordination with a drone pilot and camera operator, would take over using information I provided to surveil everything that occurred within the drone’s field of vision. This was done, most often, to document the day-to-day lives of suspected militants. Sometimes, under the right conditions, an attempt at capture would be made. Other times, a decision to strike and kill them where they stood would be weighed.

The first time that I witnessed a drone strike came within days of my arrival to Afghanistan. Early that morning, before dawn, a group of men had gathered together in the mountain ranges of Patika provence around a campfire carrying weapons and brewing tea. That they carried weapons with them would not have been considered out of the ordinary in the place I grew up, muchless within the virtually lawless tribal territories outside the control of the Afghan authorities. Except that among them was a suspected member of the Taliban, given away by the targeted cell phone device in his pocket. As for the remaining individuals, to be armed, of military age, and sitting in the presence of an alleged enemy combatant was enough evidence to place them under suspicion as well. Despite having peacefully assembled, posing no threat, the fate of the now tea drinking men had all but been fulfilled. I could only look on as I sat by and watched through a computer monitor when a sudden, terrifying flurry of hellfire missiles came crashing down, splattering purple-colored crystal guts on the side of the morning mountain.

Since that time and to this day, I continue to recall several such scenes of graphic violence carried out from the cold comfort of a computer chair. Not a day goes by that I don’t question the justification for my actions. By the rules of engagement, it may have been permissible for me to have helped to kill those men—whose language I did not speak, customs I did not understand, and crimes I could not identify—in the gruesome manner that I did. Watch them die. But how could it be considered honorable of me to continuously have laid in wait for the next opportunity to kill unsuspecting persons, who, more often than not, are posing no danger to me or any other person at the time. Nevermind honorable, how could it be that any thinking person continued to believe that it was necessary for the protection of the United States of America to be in Afghanistan and killing people, not one of whom present was responsible for the September 11th attacks on our nation. Notwithstanding, in 2012, a full year after the demise of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, I was a part of killing misguided young men who were but mere children on the day of 9/11.

Nevertheless, in spite of my better instincts, I continued to follow orders and obey my command for fear of repercussion. Yet, all the while, becoming increasingly aware that the war had very little to do with preventing terror from coming into the United States and a lot more to do with protecting the profits of weapons manufacturers and so-called defense contractors. The evidence of this fact was laid bare all around me. In the longest or most technologically advanced war in American history, contract mercenaries outnumbered uniform wearing soldiers 2 to 1 and earned as much as 10 times their salary. Meanwhile, it did not matter whether it was, as I had seen, an Afghan farmer blown in half, yet miraculously conscious and pointlessly trying to scoop his insides off the ground, or whether it was an American flag-draped coffin lowered into Arlington National Cemetery to the sound of a 21-gun salute. Bang, bang, bang. Both served to justify the easy flow of capital at the cost of blood—theirs and ours. When I think about this I am grief-stricken and ashamed of myself for the things I’ve done to support it.

The most harrowing day of my life came months into my deployment to Afghanistan when a routine surveillance mission turned into disaster. For weeks we had been tracking the movements of a ring of car bomb manufacturers living around Jalalabad. Car bombs directed at US bases had become an increasingly frequent and deadly problem that summer, so much effort was put into stopping them. It was a windy and clouded afternoon when one of the suspects had been discovered headed eastbound, driving at a high rate of speed. This alarmed my superiors who believe he might be attempting to escape across the border into Pakistan.

A drone strike was our only chance and already it began lining up to take the shot. But the less advanced predator drone found it difficult to see through clouds and compete against strong headwinds. The single payload MQ-1 failed to connect with its target, instead missing by a few meters. The vehicle, damaged, but still driveable, continued on ahead after narrowly avoiding destruction. Eventually, once the concern of another incoming missile subsided, the driver stopped, got out of the car, and checked himself as though he could not believe he was still alive. Out of the passenger side came a woman wearing an unmistakable burka. As astounding as it was to have just learned there had been a woman, possibly his wife, there with the man we intended to kill moments ago, I did not have the chance to see what happened next before the drone diverted its camera when she began frantically to pull out something from the back of the car.

A couple of days passed before I finally learned from a briefing by my commanding officer about what took place. There indeed had been the suspect’s wife with him in the car. And in the back were their two young daughters, ages 5 and 3 years old. A cadre of Afghan soldiers were sent to investigate where the car had stopped the following day. It was there they found them placed in the dumpster nearby. The eldest was found dead due to unspecified wounds caused by shrapnel that pierced her body. Her younger sister was alive but severely dehydrated. As my commanding officer relayed this information to us she seemed to express disgust, not for the fact that we had errantly fired on a man and his family, having killed one of his daughters; but for the suspected bomb maker having ordered his wife to dump the bodies of their daughters in the trash, so that the two of them could more quickly escape across the border. Now, whenever I encounter an individual who thinks that drone warfare is justified and reliably keeps America safe, I remember that time and ask myself how could I possibly continue to believe that I am a good person, deserving of my life and the right to pursue happiness.

One year later, at a farewell gathering for those of us who would soon be leaving military service, I sat alone, transfixed by the television, while others reminisced together. On television was breaking news of the president giving his first public remarks about the policy surrounding the use of drone technology in warfare. His remarks were made to reassure the public of reports scrutinizing the death of civilians in drone strikes and the targeting of American citizens. The president said that a high standard of “near certainty” needed to be met in order to ensure that no civilians were present. But from what I knew, of the instances where civilians plausibly could have been present, those killed were nearly always designated enemies killed in action unless proven otherwise. Nonetheless, I continued to heed his words as the president went on to explain how a drone could be used to eliminate someone who posed an “imminent threat” to the United States. Using the analogy of taking out a sniper, with his sights set on an unassuming crowd of people, the president likened the use of drones to prevent a would-be terrorist from carrying out his evil plot. But, as I understood it to be, the unassuming crowd had been those who lived in fear and the terror of drones in their skies and the sniper in this scenario had been me. I came to believe that the policy of drone assasiniation was being used to mislead the public that it keeps us safe, and when I finally left the military, still processing what I’d been a part of, I began to speak out, believing my participation in the drone program to have been deeply wrong.

I dedicated myself to anti-war activism, and was asked to partake in a peace conference in Washington, DC late November, 2013. People had come together from around the world to share experiences about what it is like living in the age of drones. Fazil bin Ali Jaber had journeyed from Yemen to tell us of what happened to his brother Salem bin Ali Jaber and their cousin Waleed. Waleed had been a policeman and Salem was a well-respected firebrand Imam, known for giving sermons to young men about the path towards destruction should they choose to take up violent jihad.

A US drone strike on a civilian vehicle, similar to the harrowing incident described by Fazil

One day in August 2012, local members of Al Qaeda traveling through Fazil’s village in a car spotted Salem in the shade, pulled up towards him, and beckoned him to come over and speak to them. Not one to miss an opportunity to evangelize to the youth, Salem proceeded cautiously with Waleed by his side. Fazil and other villagers began looking on from afar. Farther still was an ever present reaper drone looking too.

As Fazil recounted what happened next, I felt myself transported back in time to where I had been on that day, 2012. Unbeknownst to Fazil and those of his village at the time was that they had not been the only watching Salem approach the jihadist in the car. From Afghanistan, I and everyone on duty paused their work to witness the carnage that was about to unfold. At the press of a button from thousands of miles away, two hellfire missiles screeched out of the sky, followed by two more. Showing no signs of remorse, I, and those around me, clapped and cheered triumphantly. In front of a speechless auditorium, Fazil wept.

About a week after the peace conference I received a lucrative job offer if I were to come back to work as a government contractor. I felt uneasy about the idea. Up to that point, my only plan post military separation had been to enroll in college to complete my degree. But the money I could make was by far more than I had ever made before; in fact, it was more than any of my college-educated friends were making. So, after giving it careful consideration, I delayed going to school for a semester and took the job.

For a long time I was uncomfortable with myself over the thought of taking advantage of my military background to land a cushy desk job. During that time I was still processing what I had been through and I was starting to wonder if I was contributing again to the problem of money and war by accepting to return as a defense contractor. Worse was my growing apprehension that everyone around me was also taking part in a collective delusion and denial that was used to justify our exorbitant salaries, for comparatively easy labor. The thing I feared most at the time was the temptation not to question it.

Then it came to be that one day after work I stuck around to socialize with a pair of co-workers whose talented work I had come to greatly admire. They made me feel welcomed, and I was happy to have earned their approval. But then, to my dismay, our brand-new friendship took an unexpectedly dark turn. They elected that we should take a moment and view together some archived footage of past drone strikes. Such bonding ceremonies around a computer to watch so-called “war porn” had not been new to me. I partook in them all the time while deployed to Afghanistan. But on that day, years after the fact, my new friends gaped and sneered, just as my old one’s had, at the sight of faceless men in the final moments of their lives. I sat by watching too; said nothing and felt my heart breaking into pieces.

Your Honor, the truest truism that I’ve come to understand about the nature of war is that war is trauma. I believe that any person either called-upon or coerced to participate in war against their fellow man is promised to be exposed to some form of trauma. In that way, no soldier blessed to have returned home from war does so uninjured. The crux of PTSD is that it is a moral conundrum that afflicts invisible wounds on the psyche of a person made to burden the weight of experience after surviving a traumatic event. How PTSD manifests depends on the circumstances of the event. So how is the drone operator to process this? The victorious rifleman, unquestioningly remorseful, at least keeps his honor intact by having faced off against his enemy on the battlefield. The determined fighter pilot has the luxury of not having to witness the gruesome aftermath. But what possibly could I have done to cope with the undeniable cruelties that I perpetuated?

My conscience, once held at bay, came roaring back to life. At first, I tried to ignore it. Wishing instead that someone, better placed than I, should come along to take this cup from me. But this too was folly. Left to decide whether to act, I only could do that which I ought to do before God and my own conscience. The answer came to me, that to stop the cycle of violence, I ought to sacrifice my own life and not that of another person.

So, I contacted an investigative reporter, with whom I had had an established prior relationship, and told him that I had something the American people needed to know.

Respectfully,

Daniel Hale

Letter courtesy Counter Currents web site

More about Daniel Hale at the Stand With Daniel Hale web site

In May 2019, drone whistleblower Daniel Everette Hale was arrested and indicted on allegations that he disclosed classified documents about the U.S. military’s assassination program, believed to have been the source material for a series in The Intercept called “The Drone Papers”. On March 31, 2021, Hale pleaded guilty to a single count under the Espionage Act, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. On July 27, 2021, Daniel was sentenced to 45 months in prison.

Hale is a veteran of the US Air Force. During his military service from 2009 to 2013, he participated in the US drone program, working with both the National Security Agency and the Joint Special Operations Task Force at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. After leaving the Air Force, Hale became an outspoken opponent of the US targeted killings program, US foreign policy more generally, and a supporter of whistleblowers. He publicly spoke out at conferences, forums, and public panels. He was featured prominently in the award-winning documentary National Bird, a film about whistleblowers in the US drone program who suffered from moral injury and PTSD. Hale based his criticisms on his own participation in the drone program, which included helping to select targets based on faulty criteria and attacks on unarmed innocent civilians.

Daniel will be serving more than 3.5 years in prison for contacting the press about a matter of extreme public importance that has been shrouded in secrecy. But the larger concern is not what Hale did or didn’t do but what our government has been doing. For almost two decades, they have used a veil of secrecy to deny the American public the basic right to informed debate and consent. Government officials have repeatedly lied about nature and the extent of drone assassinations. No one has ever been held accountable for these lies, or for the war crimes they have enabled. 

Daniel is a whistleblower who has enriched the public’s knowledge about matters of grave civic concern. It is unconscionable to use a law supposedly aimed at actual spies and saboteurs, against individuals who act in good faith to bring government misconduct to the attention of the public.

The Editors acknowledge whistle blowers every where – Wilkie, McBride, Ellsberg, Assange, Snowden, Manning, Hale to name a few – they all suffer that we should know.

More articles
Chris Hedges “The Price of Conscience” on RT News

Julian Assange’s Ecuadorian Citizenship Revoked: July 2021

On the 28th July 2021, Associated Press in Quito reported Ecuador has revoked the citizenship of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who remains in a British prison. Assange received Ecuadorian citizenship in January 2018 as part of a failed attempt by the government of then-President Lenín Moreno to turn him into a diplomat and get him out … Continue reading “Julian Assange’s Ecuadorian Citizenship Revoked: July 2021”

On the 28th July 2021, Associated Press in Quito reported

Ecuador has revoked the citizenship of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who remains in a British prison.

Assange received Ecuadorian citizenship in January 2018 as part of a failed attempt by the government of then-President Lenín Moreno to turn him into a diplomat and get him out of its embassy in London.

On Monday [26th July 2021], the Pichincha Court for Contentious Administrative Matters revoked this decision.

Ecuador’s Foreign Ministry said the court had “acted independently and followed due process in a case that took place during the previous government and that was raised by the same previous government.”

Editors Note: We fail to understand how British Police can physically extract a citizen from that country’s embassy. While we feel the extradition proceedings against Julian Assange have the makings of a kangaroo court we wish to point out at least there is a legal extradition process.

Carlos Poveda, Mr Assange’s lawyer, said the court made the decision without due process, and Mr Assange was not allowed to appear in the case.

“On the date [Mr Assange] was cited he was deprived of his liberty and with a health crisis inside the deprivation of liberty centre where he was being held,” he said.

Mr Poveda said he would file appeals asking for amplification and clarification of the decision.

Read articles in
ABC News
The Guardian

Ken Loach calls out Sir Keir Starmer, what were his dealings in the Julian Assange case

On the 26 July 2021, Paul Knaggs interviews Ken Loach ( acclaimed Film director, human rights campaigner, long history with UK Labour Party and long term supporter of Julian Assange) in the blog Labour Heartlands Everyone knows the real story everybody can see it, we can’t believe anybody is hoodwinked. it’s not espionage this is … Continue reading “Ken Loach calls out Sir Keir Starmer, what were his dealings in the Julian Assange case”

On the 26 July 2021, Paul Knaggs interviews Ken Loach ( acclaimed Film director, human rights campaigner, long history with UK Labour Party and long term supporter of Julian Assange) in the blog Labour Heartlands

Everyone knows the real story everybody can see it, we can’t believe anybody is hoodwinked. it’s not espionage this is journalism!

Ken Loach spoke out after a screening of a new film highlighting Julian Assange’s political incarceration titled ‘ The War on Journalism: The Case of Julian Assange.‘ After denouncing the mainstream media for sucking every story out of Julian Assange and the Wikileaks organisation, then leaving him to dry in the clutches of the vengeful establishment. Ken went on to call out the self-serving media. Ken Loach always one for expressing the truth asked the questions of the mainstream media most journalists and political commentators now shy away from. He went on to say:

“Everyone knows the real story everybody can see it, we can’t believe anybody is hoodwinked. it’s not espionage this is journalism! When you get a right-wing politician like David Davis saying Julian Assange is a political prisoner, everyone knows it, the Guardian knows it who took his stories then disowned him, the BBC knows it, Channel 4 news, every serious editor current affairs programme, of a national newspaper ‘knows this is the truth’ and yet they are silent the journalist are silent, the lawyers are silent.”

Ken Loach: Starmer should be challenged, what does he know?

Stating this should be a test for him! Starmer speaks of openness in his dealings, well let him be open about this, and let’s hear what he says about the torture and the illegal oppression of Julian Assange.

What do we know about Sir Keir Starmer as head of the Prosecution service.

As DPP, Sir Keir Starmer tempered his supposed love of liberty by fast-tracking the extradition of Julian Assange (a process now making its way through the courts). He flouted legal precedents by advising Swedish lawyers not to question Assange in Britain: a decision that prolonged the latter’s legal purgatory denied closure to his accusers in Sweden and sealed his fate before a US show trial. Leaked emails from August 2012 show that, when the Swedish legal team expressed hesitancy about keeping Assange’s case open, Sir Keir’s office replied: ‘Don’t you dare get cold feet’.

Documents released under Freedom of Information requests to Italian magazine La Repubblica confirm the very close relationship between the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Sweden in the Julian Assange case. The files contain hundreds of mostly redacted emails sent over a five-year period.

But according to one authoritative source, the number of CPS documents relating to the case may be much greater than has so far been disclosed.

In May 2017, the Swedish authorities announced they had ceased all remaining investigations into alleged sexual assault by WikiLeaks founder Assange. But the Metropolitan Police arrest warrant for skipping bail would remain in force. Subsequently, Assange’s legal team sought a ruling that the Met warrant should be rescinded, but the court ruled otherwise.

Chief Magistrate hearing the Assange case: Baroness Emma Arbuthot, married to Baron Arbuthot, former British Conservative Party MP & Chairman of the Defence Select Committee. Yes of course the judiciary is completely independent in the UK. https://t.co/zSxpnoildL

GASPS IN PUBLIC GALLERY AS JUDGE SAYS ASSANGE CAN ‘LEAVE THE (ECUADORIAN EMBASSY) WHENEVER HE LIKES, HAVE UNLIMITED VISITORS UNSUPERVISED, CAN CHOOSE WHEN HE EATS, SLEEPS AND EXERCISES’. SHE’S KNOCKING DOWN MOST OF ASSANGE CASE TO HAVE ARREST WARRANT DROPPED #ASSANGE #WIKILEAKS— Lisa Millar (@LisaMillar) February 13, 2018

CPS intervention

The emails between the Swedish Prosecuting Authority (SPA) and the CPS show that the latter was closely involved in the Assange case at every stage.

In one such email, dated 25 January 2011, a CPS lawyer advised the SPA not to send someone to the UK: “My earlier advice remains, that in my view it would not be prudent for the Swedish authorities to try to interview the defendant [Assange] in the UK.

In August 2012, in response to an article saying Sweden could withdraw the warrant against Assange, a CPS staffer (name redacted) warned [pdf, p1] Sweden’s Director of Public Prosecutions Marianne Ny: Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!

But a year later, in October 2013, NY wrote [pdf, p332]we have found us to be obliged to consider to lift the detention order… and to withdraw the European arrest warrant. If so this should be done in a couple of weeks. This would affect not only us but you too in a significant way.

However, it took three and a half more years for that to happen.

Edward Fitzgerald QC said in court that Assange is ‘anti-war and anti-imperialist’ and this is why the US is out to get him.

This case is one of the great political cases of the century, as John McDonnell recently said. It’s a defining case for the left, and Sir Keir Starmer has taken the most conservative position imaginable.

This is what Labour Party members can expect from a Starmer leadership: unquestioning loyalty to the establishment on both sides of the Atlantic.

It beggars belief that Julian Assange who is ‘subjected to every kind of torment’ in Belmarsh prison sits and awaits extradition, yet the likes of Tony Blair walks free. To rub salt into this travesty of justice, when the Scottish SNP proposed a motion to investigate Tony Blair for allegedly misleading parliament over the Iraq war, Sir Keir Starmer voted against it.

Meanwhile, the most high profile political prisoner is treated like a war criminal for exposing war crimes.

Read original articles in Labour Heartlands