Julian Speaks: a free man among friends, at last
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe [PACE] provided a warm welcome to Julian Assange for his first public speech after 6.5 years gagged. Here is an ANNOTATED TRANSCRIPT of that event.
Last UPDATED: 7 Oct 2024
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION: Free at last
COMMITTEE SESSION 1 Oct 2024
The Plea Deal
TRANSCRIPT
12:25 INTRODUCTION
17:01 RAPPORTEUR Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir (Iceland, SOC)
19:31 JULIAN ASSANGE STATEMENT
41:26 JULIAN ASSANGE Q & A SESSION
1:34:24 JULIAN ASSANGE Final Words
1:37:55 ENDS
PLENARY SESSION 2 Oct 2024
PACE RESOLUTION EXTRACTS:
INTERVIEWS:
DISCUSSION Panels:
The author
♦ INTRODUCTION: Free at last
Julian Assange was released from HMP Belmarsh maximum security prison on the morning of 24 June 2024, after having spent 1901 days there. He was granted bail by the High Court in London and was released at London’s Stansted airport during the afternoon, where he boarded a plane and departed the UK.
A pre-recorded video was then released, with Stella Assange and Kristinn Hrafnsson explaining something of what was to come.
Julian, with his lawyers, flew to Saipan by private jet (as required by the terms of the plea deal). There he attended the US District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, where he “pled guilty to journalism”, was convicted and sentenced to time served. The judge wished him well in his new life (and a happy birthday in the days to come).
His plane journey continued to Canberra, Australia, where he was met by his wife Stella Assange, and a hero’s welcome.
He then disappeared to recuperate, physically and mentally, in the back blocks and on the beaches of rural NSW - without saying a word in public.
Until NOW.
♦ COMMITTEE SESSION 1 Oct 2024
♦ Video link: [YouTube]
♦ Livestreamed: 1 October 2024
NOTE:
This UNOFFICIAL transcription has been created from a publicly available video file so as to enhance accessibility to the subject matter for the purpose of commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching &/or scholarship.
The transcription may not be completely accurate - those wishing to quote from this interview should refer to the original VIDEO SOURCE.
Any LINKS provided within the transcript itself are solely to assist the reader, and were NOT provided by the speaker, and so should not be construed as any kind of representation by them.
Summary (from video header):
Julian Assange, accompanied by his wife Stella, took part in a parliamentary hearing on his detention and conviction - and their chilling effect on human rights - on 1 October 2024 ahead of a full plenary debate on this topic by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) due the following day.
The hearing was organised by the Assembly’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in the framework of a report on this topic by Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir (Iceland, SOC).
In his first public remarks since his release from detention at Belmarsh Prison in the UK four months ago, Mr Assange told parliamentarians: "I want to be totally clear. I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today because after years of incarceration I pled guilty to journalism. I pled guilty to seeking information from a source, and I pled guilty to informing the public what that information was."
He added: "It’s good to be back. It’s good to be amongst people who – as we say in Australia – who give a damn. It’s good to be amongst friends."
In a recent draft resolution, based on Ms Ævarsdóttir's report, the committee expressed deep concern at Mr Assange’s harsh treatment, warned of its “chilling effect” and called on the United States, a Council of Europe observer state, to investigate the alleged war crimes and human rights violations disclosed by him and WikiLeaks.
The committee also said it considers that the “disproportionately severe charges” brought against him by the US authorities, as well as the heavy penalties foreseen under the Espionage Act for engaging in acts of journalism, fall within the requirements set out in a 2012 Assembly resolution on the definition of a political prisoner.
On Wednesday 2 October, the Assembly – which brings together parliamentarians from the 46 Council of Europe member states – will debate and vote on the committee’s draft resolution. Mr Assange is expected to be present in the public gallery to watch the debate.
[Link] - More on the hearing and debate
[Link] - More on the committee's position
[Link] - Full report by Ms Ævarsdóttir
[Link] - Documents for the plenary debate
♦ The PLEA DEAL
PLEA DEAL - and Freedom for Assange
Plea deal (filed 25 June 2024) via [Court Listener PDF]
Final Charge document (25 June 2024)
(2 of 4 pages) via [Tweet] 4 Pages [WaPo PDF]Letter to Judge in Northern Mariana Islands via [Tweet]
Other Court docs, inc 2x audio files of Court sessions
via [Court Listener] [YouTube]
♦ TRANSCRIPT
NOTE: Time stamps are for the YouTube video linked above. Other versions may differ slightly.
00:00 PRE-SESSION
♦ 12:25 INTRODUCTION
Lord Richard Keen:
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Richard Keen. I'm the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly.
Before I open this committee meeting, there are a number of points that I would like to mention in order that those who may not be familiar with the procedures of this committee may follow the proceedings more easily. And there are certain other matters that I should draw to your attention in view of the extensive media interest in the proceedings of the committee.
When I open the meeting I will invite the Rapporteur to make a short introduction to the committee. I will then invite Mr Julian Assange to address the committee for 12 to 15 minutes.
Thereafter, members of the committee may ask to put questions to Mr Assange. These should be questions and not statements. Initially, members of the committee may put one question. If there is time, then I will invite members of the committee to put further questions if they wish to do so. Should any member of the committee succumb to the temptation to ask multiple questions, then I will invite Mr Assange to answer only the first question, in order that appropriate time is given to other members of the committee.
Members of the committee will put their questions when invited by the chair to do so. I should mention that pursuant to Rule 48.4, while members of the assembly other than members of this committee are entitled to be present, they may not speak. However, if there is sufficient time at the end of the meeting I may be able to invite such members of the assembly to put questions to Mr Assange.
These proceedings will be recorded and broadcast. In addition, the interpreters must be able to follow proceedings without difficulty. Consequently, I must invite those in the hall not to talk over each other, not to interrupt, to place all mobiles on silent, and if there are those who feel the need to engage in conversation then they will be invited to do so outside the hall.
Having set out that background, I would now declare this meeting open.
As you can see from the agenda of this meeting, it is devoted to an exchange of views with Julian Assange, and that is in light of the fact that on Wednesday of this week the Parliamentary Assembly will hold a debate on the report prepared by the Rapporteur, entitled “The detention and conviction of Julian Assange and their chilling effects on human rights.”
Can I first of all ask members of the committee to indicate if they take any exception to the agenda? I take the agenda as approved.
Mr Assange, thank you for taking the trouble to attend this committee. We're extremely grateful for you doing so. [Applause]
We look forward to an informative exchange of views.
Could I then begin by inviting the Rapporteur to make a brief introduction.
Thank you Sunna.
♦ 17:01 RAPPORTEUR Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir (Iceland, SOC)
17:01
Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir:
Thank you Chair. Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, dear Julian and Stella Assange, and Kristinn.
I last met Julian Assange in May when I visited him in Belmarsh prison during my fact- finding visit to London. Today I consider it a privilege to say “Welcome Julian, to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.”
I am very grateful that you were able to travel all the way from Australia to appear before the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to discuss our report on the chilling effects that your detention and eventual conviction has had on media freedom worldwide. Over the years, WikiLeaks has published and revealed gruesome instances of war crimes, enforced disappearances, torture, corruption, abductions, and scores of different forms of human rights violations.
Julian Assange did what investigative journalists routinely do - he elicited confidential information from a source and published it. Sadly, instead of prosecuting the perpetrators of the crimes so disclosed, the United States decided to prosecute the whistleblower and the publisher; instead of convicting war criminals they convicted the whistleblower and the journalist.
We must address this injustice, and learn from it, so that it may never happen again.
I do not have a lot of time allotted to me today - that day comes tomorrow when I present my report to the Assembly. For now, I look forward to hearing your views, dear Julian, on the subject matter at hand, and I thank you very much.
18:51
Lord Richard Keen:
Thank you Sunna. Mr Assange, could I please invite you to address the Committee and to take, let us say, 12 to 15 minutes. But if you indicate that you wish more time please just do so.
♦ 19:31 JULIAN ASSANGE STATEMENT
19:31 Julian Assange
Mr. Chairman, esteemed members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ladies and gentlemen.
The transition from years of confinement in a maximum-security prison to being here before the representatives of 46 nations and 700 million people is a profound and surreal shift.
The experience of isolation for years in a small cell is difficult to convey; it strips away one's sense of self, leaving only the raw essence of existence.
I am yet not fully equipped to speak about what I have endured - the relentless struggle to stay alive, both physically and mentally, nor can I speak yet about the deaths by hanging, murder, and medical neglect of my fellow prisoners.
I apologise in advance if my words falter or if my presentation lacks the polish you might expect in such a distinguished forum.
Isolation has taken its toll, which I am trying to unwind, and expressing myself in this setting is a challenge.
However, the gravity of this occasion and the weight of the issues at hand compel me to set aside my reservations and speak to you directly.
I have travelled a long way, literally and figuratively, to be before you today.
Before our discussion or answering any questions you might have, I wish to thank PACE for its 2020 Resolution 2317, which stated that my imprisonment set a dangerous precedent for journalists and noted that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture called for my release.
I'm also grateful for PACE's 2021 statement expressing concern over credible reports that US officials discussed my assassination, again calling for my prompt release.
And I commend the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee for commissioning a renowned Rapporteur, Sunna Ævarsdóttir, to investigate the circumstances surrounding my detention and conviction and the consequent implications for human rights.
However, like so many of the efforts made in my case - whether they were from parliamentarians, presidents, prime ministers, the Pope, UN officials and diplomats, unions, legal and medical professionals, academics, activists, or citizens - none of them should have been necessary.
None of the statements, resolutions, reports, films, articles, events, fundraisers, protests, and letters over the last 14 years should have been necessary.
But all of them were necessary because without them I never would have seen the light of day.
22:45
This unprecedented global effort was needed because, of the legal protections that did exist, many existed only on paper or were not effective in any remotely reasonable time [frame].
I eventually chose freedom over unrealisable justice, after being detained for years and facing a 175 year sentence with no effective remedy. Justice for me is now precluded, as the US government insisted in writing into its plea agreement that I cannot file a case at the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] or even a Freedom Of Information Act Request [FOIA] over what it did to me as a result of its extradition request.
I want to be totally clear. I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today, after years of incarceration, because I pled guilty to journalism. I pled guilty to seeking information from a source. I pled guilty to obtaining information from a source. And I pled guilty to informing the public what that information was.
I did not plead guilty to anything else.
I hope my testimony today can serve to highlight the weaknesses of the existing safeguards, and to help those whose cases are less visible but who are equally vulnerable.
24:26
As I emerge from the dungeon of Belmarsh, the truth now seems less discernible, and I regret how much ground has been lost during that time period - how expressing the truth has been undermined, attacked, weakened, and diminished.
I see more impunity, more secrecy, more retaliation for telling the truth and more self censorship. It is hard not to draw a line from the US government's prosecution of me - its crossing the rubicon by internationally criminalising journalism - to the chilled climate for freedom of expression that exists now.
25:20
When I founded WikiLeaks it was driven by a simple dream: to educate people about how the world works so that, through understanding, we might bring about something better.
Having a map of where we are lets us understand where we might go.
Knowledge empowers us to hold power to account and to demand justice where there is none.
25:47
We obtained and published truths about tens of thousands of hidden casualties of war and other unseen horrors, about programs of assassination, rendition, torture, and mass surveillance.
We revealed not just when and where these things happened but frequently the policies, the agreements, and the structures behind them.
When we published Collateral Murder, the infamous gun camera footage of a US Apache helicopter crew eagerly blowing to pieces Iraqi journalists and their rescuers, the visual reality of modern warfare shocked the world.
But we also used interest in this video to direct people to the classified policies for when the US military could deploy lethal force in Iraq and how many civilians could be killed before gaining higher approval.
In fact, 40 years of my potential 175-year sentence was for obtaining and releasing those policies.
26:56
The practical political vision I was left with after being immersed in the world's dirty wars and secret operations is simple: Let us stop gagging, torturing, and killing each other for a change. Get these fundamentals right and other political, economic, and scientific processes will have space to take care of the rest.
WikiLeaks' work was deeply rooted in the principles that this Assembly stands for.
Our journalism elevated freedom of information and the public's right to know. It found its natural operational home in Europe.
I lived in Paris, and we had formal corporate registrations in France and in Iceland. Our journalistic and technical staff were spread throughout Europe. We published to the world from servers based in France, in Germany, and in Norway.
28:09
But 14 years ago the United States military arrested one of our alleged whistleblowers, PFC Manning, a US intelligence analyst based in Iraq.
The US government concurrently launched an investigation against me and my colleagues. [See also 2008 document.]
The US government illicitly sent planes of agents to Iceland, paid bribes to an informer to steal our legal and journalistic work product, and without formal process pressured banks and financial services to block our subscriptions and to freeze our accounts.
The UK government took part in some of this retribution. It admitted at the European Court of Human Rights that it had unlawfully spied on my UK lawyers during this time.
29:06
Ultimately this harassment was legally groundless. President Obama's Justice Department chose not to indict me, recognizing that no crime had been committed.
The United States had never before prosecuted a publisher for publishing or obtaining government information.
To do so would require a radical and ominous reinterpretation of the US Constitution.
In January 2017, Obama also commuted the sentence of Manning, who had been convicted of being one of my sources.
29:49
However, in February 2017, the landscape changed dramatically.
President Trump had been elected. He appointed two wolves in MAGA hats: Mike Pompeo, a Kansas congressman and former arms industry executive, as CIA Director, and William Barr, a former CIA officer, as US Attorney General.
By March 2017, WikiLeaks had exposed the CIA's infiltration of French political parties, its spying on French and German leaders, its spying on the European Central Bank, European economics ministries, and its standing orders to spy on French industry as a whole.
We revealed the CIA's vast production of malware and viruses, its subversion of supply chains, its subversion of antivirus software, cars, smart TVs and iPhones [Vault7].
CIA Director Pompeo launched a campaign of retribution.
31:07
It is now a matter of public record that under Pompeo's explicit direction, the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and to assassinate me within the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and authorised going after my European colleagues, subjecting us to theft, hacking attacks, and the planting of false information.
My wife and my infant son were also targeted. A CIA asset was permanently assigned to track my wife and instructions were given to obtain DNA from my six month old son's nappy.
This is the testimony of more than 30 current and former US intelligence officials speaking to the US press, which has been additionally corroborated by records seized in a prosecution brought against some of the CIA agents involved.
The CIA's targeting of myself, my family and my associates through aggressive extrajudicial and extraterritorial means provides a rare insight into how powerful intelligence organisations engage in transnational repression. Such repressions are not unique. What is unique is that we know so much about this one due to numerous whistleblowers and to judicial investigations in Spain.
32:41
This Assembly is no stranger to extraterritorial abuses by the CIA.
PACE's groundbreaking report on CIA renditions in Europe exposed how the CIA operated secret detention centres and conducted unlawful renditions on European soil, violating human rights and international law.
33:01
Violating Human Rights and International Law
In February this year, the alleged source of some of our CIA revelations, former CIA officer Joshua Schulte, was sentenced to forty years in prison under conditions of extreme isolation.
His windows are blacked out, and a white noise machine plays 24 hours a day over his door so that he cannot even shout through it.
These conditions are more severe than those found in Guantanamo Bay.
33:36
Transnational repression is also conducted by abusing legal processes.
The lack of effective safeguards against this means that Europe is vulnerable to having its mutual legal assistance and extradition treaties hijacked by foreign powers to go after dissenting voices in Europe.
In Michael Pompeo's memoirs, which I read in my prison cell, the former CIA Director bragged about how he pressured the US Attorney General to bring an extradition case against me in response to our publications about the CIA.
Indeed, acceding to Pompeo's requests, the US Attorney General reopened the investigation against me that Obama had closed and re-arrested Manning, this time as a witness.
Manning was held in a prison for over a year and fined a thousand dollars a day in a formal attempt to coerce her into providing secret testimony against me.
She ended up attempting to take her own life.
We usually think of attempts to force journalists to testify against their sources.But Manning was now a source being forced to testify against their journalist.
35:18
By December 2017, CIA Director Pompeo had got his way, and the US government issued a warrant to the UK for my extradition. [See also CPS Timeline]
The UK government kept the warrant secret from the public for two more years, while it, the US government, and the new president of Ecuador moved to shape the political, the legal, and the diplomatic grounds for my arrest.
When powerful nations feel entitled to target individuals beyond their borders, those individuals do not stand a chance unless there are strong safeguards in place and a state willing to enforce them. Without this, no individual has a hope of defending themselves against the vast resources that a state aggressor can deploy.
If the situation were not already bad enough in my case, the US government asserted a dangerous new global legal position: only US citizens have free speech rights. Europeans and other nationalities do not have free speech rights.
But the US claims its Espionage Act still applies to them regardless of where they are.
So Europeans in Europe must obey US secrecy law with no defences at all as far as the US government is concerned. An American in Paris can talk about what the US government is up to - perhaps. But for a Frenchman in Paris, to do so is a crime with no defence and he may be extradited just like me.
37:33
Now that one foreign government has formally asserted that Europeans have no free speech rights, a dangerous precedent has been set.
Other powerful states will inevitably follow suit.
The war in Ukraine has already seen the criminalisation of journalists in Russia, but based on the precedent set in my extradition, there is nothing to stop Russia, or indeed any other state, from targeting European journalists, publishers, or even social media users, by claiming that their domestic secrecy laws have been violated.
The rights of journalists and publishers within the European space are seriously threatened.
Transnational repression cannot become the norm here.
As one of the world's two great norm-setting institutions, PACE must act.
38:41
The criminalisation of newsgathering activities is a threat to investigative journalism everywhere.
I was formally convicted, by a foreign power, for asking for, receiving, and publishing truthful information about that power, while I was in Europe.
The fundamental issue is simple: Journalists should not be prosecuted for doing their jobs. Journalism is not a crime; it is a pillar of a free and informed society. [Applause]
Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, if Europe is to have a future where the freedom to speak and the freedom to publish the truth are not privileges enjoyed by a few, but rights guaranteed to all, then it must act so that what has happened in my case never happens to anyone else.
39:50
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to this assembly, to the conservatives, social democrats, liberals, leftists, greens, and independents - who have supported me throughout this ordeal and to the countless individuals who have advocated tirelessly for my release.
It is heartening to know that in a world often divided by ideology and interests, there remains a shared commitment to the protection of essential human liberties.
Freedom of expression and all that flows from it is at a dark crossroad. I fear that unless institutions like PACE wake up to the gravity of the situation, it will be too late.
Let us all commit to doing our part to ensure that the light of freedom never dims, that the pursuit of truth will live on, and that the voices of the many are not silenced by the interests of the few." [Applause]
♦ 41:26 JULIAN ASSANGE Q & A SESSION
Lord Richard Keen:
Thank you Mr Assange for that contribution to our proceedings. I will now open the floor to members of the committee. I would remind everyone that questions can only be raised by members of the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights. As I indicated before we began, I will allow one question from each member and give the floor back to Mr Assange to reply to each of the questions.
Mr Assange, we're not entirely familiar with the plea that you were made to enter into, and if there are questions asked which you feel it would not be appropriate to answer, please don't hesitate to indicate, and that will be understood.
Could I call upon Miss Bayr to ask a question. Thank you.
42:20
Ms Bayr
Thank you very much for being with us and for sharing your testimony. As far as I understood, neither UK courts nor the European Court of Human Rights got any final decision in your case. On the one hand I would like very personally to know how this feels for you, and on the other case I would like to know whether you have any suggestions, systematically, legally how cases like yours could really be settled in a legal system that works correctly and properly.
43:02
Julian Assange
After 14 years detained in the UK, including over 5 years in a Maximum Security Prison, and facing a 175 year sentence, with the prospect of years more in prison before being able to have a shot at the European Court of Human Rights, I accepted a plea offer from the United States that would release me from prison immediately.
The United States insisted that I not be allowed to take a case in relation to what had happened to me in relation to its extradition proceedings, nor that I could even file a Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] request on the US government to see what was done. There will never be a hearing into what has happened. And that's why it's so important that PACE acts.
The uncertainty within Europe as to the defences that can be used by journalists, here, to protect themselves from transnational repression and extradition, if left in its current state, will inevitably be abused by other states. So norm-setting institutions like PACE must move to make the situation clear, [so] that what happened to me cannot happen again.
45:06
Ms Nowika
Mr Assange, it is great to have you today at the committee meeting. In fact, I don't want to ask about the past, more or less …”
Julian Assange interjects “the past is the past?”
Ms Nowika “Yes, it's not finished yet of course, but I wanted to ask you whether you believe that our proceedings here in the Council of Europe, in case and hopefully the report prepared by Sunna Ævarsdóttir is going to be accepted at the Plenary session, that will reverse the negative impact that your case had on the position of whistleblowers, and the right to expression globally, that really you hope for, that in case the report is going to be accepted, and your visit here to Parliament will have this positive aspect, and will improve the situation in this regard, of the rights of journalists and so on.
But I would like to add, how do you visualise your life now after your case? I'm not asking very much about your private plans, but in general, what what are you planning to do basically? Thank you.
46:53
Julian Assange
Well I think that … I am here because I believe it is an essential first step for PACE to act to get the ball rolling, to address the problems of transnational repression, and also to make it clear that National Security journalism is possible within European borders.
As for my readaptation to the Big Wide World outside of House Arrest and Embassy Siege and Maximum Security Prison, it sure takes some adjustment. It's not simply the spooky sound of electric cars - they are very spooky - but it is also the change in the society.
Where we once released important war crimes videos that stirred public debate, now every day there are live streamed horrors from the wars in Ukraine and the war in Gaza. Hundreds of journalists have been killed in Gaza and Ukraine combined. The impunity seems to mount, and it is still uncertain what we can do about it.
My readaptation to the world, of course, includes some positive but still tricky things: becoming a father again to children who have grown up without me. Becoming a husband again, even dealing with a mother-in-law. These are trying family issues! No, she's a very lovely woman. I like her, I like her very much!
[Laughter, as Stella Assange silences Julian’s microphone. Applause.]
49:47
Mr Kleinwächter
Thank you Mr President.
Back to a sadder issue. How well in your experience does political asylum really work in today's world?
50:07
Julian Assange
Political asylum is an absolutely essential relief valve for human rights abuses within states. That people can leave a state that is persecuting them not only saves individual lives. It provides a mechanism where journalists can continue to report on their societies after they have been hounded out.
Ultimately the threat of people leaving a state is what, in the final analysis, controls its behaviour.
We have seen examples in history of states that made it difficult or impossible for people to leave and we can see how the situation for people living there collapsed. There must be competition between states to be good places for people to live and to work.
The assault on asylum through means of transnational repression is another matter. In my case, it was difficult to find a state that would give asylum that I was able to get to. There is a big gap in the asylum system for people who are not fleeing their own state, but fleeing an ally of that state, or any third state. That was my case. Asylum law does not easily cover the case where, say, an Australian is fleeing persecution by the United States. Or we could imagine a Kazakhstani fleeing persecution by Russia or China. I was not able to apply for asylum within the UK. Of course the UK has its own particular political angle. It might have been difficult to convince the courts to give me, or in fact anyone, asylum in relation to the United States in the UK. But there wasn't even a chance, because citizens from third states, under the 1951 convention, as it's implemented in most European States, cannot apply for asylum.
53:11
Mr Hunko
Thank you very much. Mr Assange, I'm so happy to see you here, to see Stella as well. And thank you for reminding what PACE did in the last four years, starting with the hearing we had in January 2020 with your father John Shipton and with Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, and very important other persons.
And three times, I think, this assembly made a clear position calling for the prompt release. And I think this assembly can be a bit proud of it, because it failed in other International state organisations. There were attempts as well in the European Union parliament in the OSCE but none of them had enough courage to make a clear statement.
Julian Assange “Perhaps not enough geopolitical diversity?”
Mr Hunko Maybe, maybe. So I'm very happy … maybe a question on the extra jurisdictional repression you talked about, in the end, because this is one of the most shocking [things] for me - that there is a law in the US on freedom of speech [the First Amendment] where there is not for other citizens, but there are laws that can be applied to other citizens [the Espionage Act]. What could we do as a Parliamentary Assembly or as the Council of Europe of European States to counter this?
55:19
Julian Assange
In the final UK High Court case, which I won, and the US appealed against, I won under the basis of nationality discrimination: that is, in the UK Extradition Act you're not meant to discriminate [Convention Rights, Article 14 of Schedule 1] at trial, or during the penalty phase, against someone on the basis of their nationality.
The US tried different tricks to get around that in the UK system, and it was uncertain whether I or the United States would ultimately prevail.
However, there is nothing in the European Charter that prevents nationality discrimination in relation to extradition, so this is a small protection that was hard to use within the UK Extradition Act. But it's not clear that it exists in most European states.
56:51
Ms Mikkonen
Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you Mr Assange that you are here.
PACE has done work on transnational repression, where states go after someone in another state. In this case, in your case, there are these very troubling allegations about the CIA monitoring, and even considering assassination.
Can you comment more on those, and how do you yourself see your status? Were you a political prisoner?
57:43
Julian Assange
The first part of your question was about the CIA. The second part was about do I see myself as a political prisoner? Answering the first one, first. Yes, I was a political prisoner. The political basis for the US government's retributive acts against me was in relation to publishing the truth about what the US government had done. Then, in a formal legal sense, once the US proceeded with its legal retribution, it used the Espionage Act - a classic political offence.
In relation to the CIA’s campaign of transnational repression against WikiLeaks, we felt that something was going on at the time.There were many small signs that came together but having an ominous feeling, and some subtly put tips from a whistleblower in one of the security contractors that the CIA had contracted, didn't give me the full and disturbing picture which later emerged. It is an interesting example, where an intelligence organisation has targeted an investigative organisation - WikiLeaks.
As a result of our investigations, a criminal case in Spain and, in particular, work done by US journalists - which under the precedent that has been established in my case might well now be themselves criminal - detailed information about the actions the CIA took came out. Those details involved the testimony of more than 30 current or former US intelligence officials.
There are two resulting processes: a criminal case in Spain with a number of victims, including my wife, my son, people who came to visit me at the embassy, lawyers, journalists; and a civil suit in the United States against the CIA.
In the US, the CIA has - in response to that civil suit - declared formally, by the CIA director and the Attorney General, State Secret's privilege to knock out the case. The claim is that the CIA may have a defence, but that defence is classified, and so that the case, the civil case, cannot go forward. So it's complete impunity within the US system.
[NB: Part of that case may progress. See tweet (4 Oct 2024) from Trevor Fitzgibbon.]
1:01:48
Mr Račan
Mr Assange, if you could go back in time would you do everything the same? And if not, what would you do differently?
I'm not asking just in terms of personal cost that you suffered, but also in terms of effectiveness or impact of what you tried to do. Thank you.
1:02:22
Julian Assange
This is a very deep question about “free will”. Why do people do things when they do them?
Looking back, we were often constrained by our resources: number of staff, by secrecy that was necessary to protect our sources. If I could go back and have a lot of extra resources, of course, political approaches, media approaches, could have maximised even further the impact of the revelations that we made.
But I suppose your question is trying to say, well were there any knobs that could be turned in hindsight? Of course, thousands of small things. I was not from the United Kingdom. I had a good friend in the United Kingdom - Gavin MacFadyen, who was an American journalist, a very good man. But it took me time to, once I was trapped in the United Kingdom, it took me time to understand what UK society was about - who you could trust, who you couldn't trust, the different types of manoeuvres that are made in that society. And there are different media partners that perhaps we could have chosen differently.
1:04:41
Mr Chope
You were the subject of a European Arrest Warrant [EAW] issued by Sweden.
To what extent do you think that European arrest warrants are being used as tools of repression, and to what extent do you think the rules could be changed so that they can no longer be used for that purpose?
1:05:16
Julian Assange
The European Arrest Warrant system was introduced post September 11 [2001] with the political rationale that it would be used for the fast transfer of Muslim terrorists between European States. The first European Arrest Warrant that was issued was issued by Sweden for a drunk driver.
We must understand that when we pick a disfavored group - Muslims at that time - and say, well this repressive legislation, it's only going to be for them, inevitably bureaucrats, elements of the security state, will seize upon those measures and apply them more broadly. Injustice to one person spreads soon enough to most people.
I don't know how the statistics on how often arrest warrants are abused. There was an attempt to extradite me without any charge from the United Kingdom by Sweden.
The UK government subsequently changed the law to prevent extradition without charge, but in its amendment to the extradition legislation it included a rider to make sure that it didn't apply to me.
1:07:02
Mr Cruchten
Mr Assange, thank you very much … for all the answers to many of our questions. I am, like many of my colleagues here, very happy to see you here, and knowing you out of prison. You were imprisoned, you said rightly, for doing your job - the job that we all here expect you to do, namely being a journalist. You investigated, and you published your findings.
But it is shocking to me and to many of us to see how long the arm of US justice is, that can get a grip on you even here in Europe, and of course this raises questions that we will address tomorrow in Ms Ævarsdóttir's excellent report. But can I ask you a personal question? Were you aware, before all this, were you aware of how little your basic rights as a citizen, but also as a journalist, were protected in Europe? And if I may add another question, what do you think will be the effect on journalism as a whole from your case?
Thank you.
1:08:14
Julian Assange
We performed a legal analysis to understand what the abilities and limitations were within Europe for publishing documents from a number of different countries, including the United States. We understood that, in theory, Article 10 should protect journalists in Europe.
Similarly, looking at the US First Amendment to its Constitution, that no publisher had ever been prosecuted for publishing classified information from the United States - either domestically or internationally.
I expected some kind of harassment legal process. I was prepared to fight for that. I believe the value of these publications were such that it is okay to have that fight, and that we would prevail because we had understood what was legally possible.
My naiveté was believing in the law. When push comes to shove, laws are just pieces of paper, and they can be reinterpreted for political expediency. They are the rules made by the ruling class, more broadly, and if those rules don't suit what it wants to do, it reinterprets them or, hopefully, changes them - which is clearer.
In the case of the United States, we angered one of the constituent powers of the United States, the Intelligence sector, the Security State, the “Secrecy State”. It was powerful enough to push for a reinterpretation of the US Constitution.
The US First Amendment seems pretty black and white to me. It's very short. It says that Congress shall make no law restricting speech or the press. However, the US Constitution, and those precedents relating to it, were just reinterpreted away.
And yes, perhaps ultimately, if it got into the Supreme Court of the United States, and I was still alive in that system, I might have won - depending on what the makeup was of the US Supreme Court. But in the meantime I had lost 14 years under the House Arrest, Embassy Siege and Maximum Security Prison.
So I think this is an important lesson: that when a major power faction wants to reinterpret the law, it can push to have the element of the state - in this case the US Department of Justice - do that. And it doesn't care too much about what is legal. That's something for a much later date. In the meantime, the deterrent effect that it seeks, the retributive actions that it seeks, have had their effect.
1:12:51
Mr Leigh
Thank you. Obviously there's very considerable sympathy for your plight in this room. I'd like to ask you about the position of the UK government about the allegation that you were effectively a political prisoner, but presumably your first difficulty with the European Arrest warrant was not on political grounds, with Sweden.
I'd like to ask you, with your comment on the quality of treatment of the extradition treaties between the UK and the US, and whether the UK is in fact bound by them, and whether we have very little freedom of manoeuvre.
And I'd like to ask you about your treatment at Belmarsh prison. There's an allegation of torture, which is very serious. Nobody denies that Belmarsh is an extremely unpleasant place, but I'd like to know a bit more about the evidence for that.
1:13:52
Julian Assange
The US / UK Extradition Treaty is one-sided. Nine times more people are extradited to the United States from the UK than the other way around. The protections for US citizens being extradited to the UK are stronger. There is no need to show a prima facie case, or “reasonable suspicion” even, when the United States seeks to extradite from the UK. It's an allegation extradition system. The allegation is alleged. You do not even have a chance to argue that it is not true. All the arguments are based simply upon: “Is it the right person? Does it breach human rights?” That's it.
That said, I do not think, in any way ,that UK judges are compelled to extradite most people, and particularly journalists, to the United States. Some judges in the UK found in my favour at different stages in that process. Other judges did not. But all judges, whether they are finding in my favour or not, in the United Kingdom, showed extraordinary deference to the United States, engaged in astonishing intellectual backflips to allow the United States to have its way on my extradition, and in relation to setting precedents that occurred in my case, more broadly.
That's a - to my mind - a function of the selection of UK judges. The narrow section of British Society from which they come, their deep engagement with the UK establishment, and the UK establishment's deep engagement with the United States - whether that's in the Intelligence sector, BAE - which is now the largest manufacturer in the United Kingdom, a weapons company; BP, Shell, and some of the major banks. The United Kingdom's establishment is made up out of people who have benefited from that system for a long period of time. And almost all judges are from it. They don't need to be told explicitly what to do. They understand what is good for that cohort, and what is good for that cohort is keeping a good relationship with the United States government.
1:17:23
Lord Keen
Mr Leigh, as I indicated earlier, one question from each member of the committee.
1:17:33
Mr Efstathiou
I'm very glad, very happy seeing you a free man, Mr Assange. I think that one of the major lessons learned from your experience, and the treatment you had, is that the misuse of a legal process, the arbitrary application of legislation, may render it a means or a tool of repression, or an elicitation [??] to silence. Can I have your comments on that please?
Julian Assange
I didn't quite hear you. Can you please repeat the question, and raise your hand? I can't see you.
1:18:35
Mr Efstathiou
What comes out from your experience, and the treatment you received, is that the misuse, the arbitrary misuse or manipulation of a legal process can or may render the application of legislation, of the legal process, as a tool - a means of repression, and incitement [??] to silence, instead of a uniform application of law in a “Rule of Law” society. Can I have your comments on that?”
1:19:13
Julian Assange
Lawfare is the use of the law to achieve ends that would normally be achieved in some other form of conflict. We're not talking about simply litigating to protect your rights, but rather, picking laws to “get your man”, or to get the organisation you want to get. Not Justice seeking its resolution in law.
We've seen a lot of cases like that, and obviously experienced it ourselves in many different domains. I'm not sure precisely what can be done about it.
There is an anti-SLAPP movement in Europe which I commend. SLAPP is Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. There is good legislation in California to deal with SLAPP suits, and to reverse liabilities at an early stage, and to make abusive lawsuits more expensive to conduct.
But I think we should understand a bigger picture, which is that whenever we make a law we create a tool that self-interested bureaucrats, companies, and the worst elements of the Security State will use, and will expand the interpretation, in order to achieve control over others. And that's why law reforms are constantly needed - because laws are abused and expanded. And so it needs constant vigilance. But also great care in making laws in the first place, because they will be seized upon and abused.
1:21:44
Mr Bosić
Thank you Chair. Mr Assange, your appearance here is very important for the case you are symbolising, but it is also very important for the Council of Europe to show itself as the independent institution, and institution that promotes, really, human rights and the cause you represent.
I wonder, how do you assess support you got from the newspapers, journalists, journalist associations, and how does that …, what's the message about freedom of press in your case?
1:22:39
Julian Assange
The support from other publications, journalist unions, freedom of expression organisations, was different at different stages.
Those who saw the threat to everyone else and understood the case first, were the lawyers involved in major publications - like lawyers for the New York Times.
Freedom of expression NGOs were the next to see the threat.
Of the larger media organisations, unfortunately many of them went with their political or geopolitical alignment, so it was easy to gain support from media organisations in neutral states. And obviously, states hostile to the United States. Allies of the United States took longer. Media organisations within the United States, the journalists there - not the lawyers, but the journalists - took longer still.
It is a concern, and I can see a similar phenomenon happening with the journalists being killed in Gaza and Ukraine; that the political and geopolitical alignment of media organisations causes them to not cover those victims, or cover only certain victims.
This is a breach of journalistic solidarity. We all need to stick together, to hold the line. A journalist censored anywhere spreads censorship, which can then affect us all. Similarly, journalists being killed or targeted by intelligence agencies need our firm commitment - in writing, or in broadcast.
Sometimes there's a debate about whether someone is a journalist or an activist. I understand that debate. I've tried, in my work, to be rigorously accurate.
I believe accuracy is everything; primary sources are everything.
But there is one area where I am an activist, and all journalists must be an activist. Journalists must be activists for the truth. [Applause]
Journalists must be activists for the ability to convey the truth, and that means standing up for each other and making no apologies about it.
1:26:10
Lord Keen
Thank you. Now, could I invite any other member of the Parliamentary Assembly who is not a member of the committee to indicate if they wish to ask a question. And I can see two hands in the air. Could I invite you first of all to give your name, and then to ask your question of Mr Assange.
1:26:38
Mr Christea
Thank you Chair. My name is Andi Cristea. I'm a Romanian MP and I'm also the General Rapporteur of Science and Technology of this house. I'm also the Rapporteur on the so-called Metaverse, and Mr Assange I would like to ask you how do you see these new technologies connected to what you have presented so far. Thank you.
1:27:07
Julian Assange
I'm very interested in technology. I was a computer scientist from a young age, then studied mathematics, physics, cryptography.
It's with that cryptography that we set about our system, to protect sources, and to protect our own organisation.
I am enthused about some of the developments that are happening with cryptography. Some of those developments provide alternatives to what we see as huge media power and concentration in the hands of a few billionaires. They are still embryonic.
Other technologies emerged out of the campaign against Mass Surveillance, and the Big Bang was the Snowden revelations. That radicalised engineers and programmers in many places, who saw themselves as agents of history, in including algorithms to protect people's privacy, including the communications between journalists and their sources.
On the other hand, as I emerge from prison, I see that artificial intelligence [AI] is being used to create Mass Assassinations. Where before, there was a difference between assassination and warfare, now the two are conjoined when, where many - perhaps the majority - of targets in Gaza are bombed as a result of artificial intelligence targeting. The connection between artificial intelligence and surveillance is important.
Artificial intelligence needs information to come up with targets or ideas or propaganda, and when we're talking about the use of artificial intelligence to conduct Mass Assassinations, surveillance data from telephones, internet is key to training those algorithms.
So there's a lot that has changed. Some things have remained the same. There's a lot of opportunity and a lot of risk. I'm still trying to understand where we are, but hopefully we'll have something more useful to say in due course.
1:30:44
Sevim Dağdelen
Thank you Mr Chair. My name is Sevim Dağdelen and I'm from Germany. I’m a member of the Foreign Affairs [committee], someone who knows Julian since 2012 from the Ecuadorian Embassy, as the first Member of Parliament who has visited him. So Julian, I'm very happy to see you as a free man now in Europe. Welcome.
And I was just going to ask you about the war crimes. The US war crimes that you published are still unpunished, still ‘til today. The journalists are dead, and now there are presumably new war crimes in the proxy wars - such as in Gaza and currently in Lebanon.
So my questions are how would you advise a journalist to deal with this current situation first, and the second is what do you think is the role of parliamentarians in this regard?
1:31:59
Julian Assange
I'm sorry I'm getting a bit tired, but Kristinn [Hrafnsson], perhaps you want to take this one?
1:32:12
Kristinn Hrafnsson
Well, what can be done when we have horrible stories about targeted killings? Where we now have evidence of that in wars - it is the reality of reporting on wars - is more severe than ever before. And it was bad in Iraq. Now it is even worse. It is a horror story.
It is hard to give out advice for these journalists, how they can deal with that situation. The only thing we can call out, at least, is for an outcry and condemnation that this should be going on, because we need information, we need this information.
There are no tools to secure individuals in Gaza that are being followed by drones, and are being targeted in Mass Bombing. There is little defence on that. But the outcry and the condemnation should be there. We should not be silent when this happens.
1:33:24
Lord Keen
Thank you. Formally, I don't want to be at all difficult and interrupt, but formally the floor is with you Mr Assange. But if you're tiring, just indicate that because I think you've answered so many questions so fully and so well, and we are at a point where- if you wish this matter to be drawn to a close - we have only a few minutes left anyway, then I'm sure everyone in this room will respect that. [Applause]
Mr Assange would like to say some final words, and I hope you'll bear with him.
Thank you.
♦ 1:34:24 JULIAN ASSANGE Final Words
1:34:24
Julian Assange
Just a few final words. In 2010 I was living in Paris. I went to the United Kingdom, and never came back - until now.
It's good to be back. It's good to be amongst people, who - as we say in Australia - who give a damn. It's good to be amongst friends.
And I would just like to thank all the people who have fought for my liberation, and who have understood importantly that my liberation was coupled to their own liberation; that the basic fundamental liberties which sustain us all have to be fought for, and that when one of us falls through the cracks, soon enough those cracks will widen and take the rest of us down.
So thank you for your thought, your courage - in this and other settings - and keep up the fight.
[Applause]
♦ 1:37:55 ENDS
♦ PLENARY SESSION 2 Oct 2024
Video link: [YouTube]
Livestreamed: 2 October 2024
Documents for the plenary debate: [Link]
PACE Verbatim record: [Link]
Timestamps
00:00 Unfortunately the YT video starts mid debate
32:49 The Rapporteur replies after the debate
35:59 Ms Vasylenco (Vice Chair) thanks the Rapporteur and recommends adoption
of the recommendations
38:23 Speeches on 10 amendments to draft resolution.
Amds 1 & 5 approved.
Amds 7, 8 & 10 accepted by committee,
Amds 2, & 4 rejected by committee
40:07 Amd 6 Mr Estathiou (No evidence that WikiLeaks publications harmed anyone) approved
42:05 Amd 2 Lord Keen amendment withdrawn
42:43 Amd 7 Mr Estathiou (reminder of freedom of expression) approved
43:58 Amd 8 Mr Estathiou (clarifies the situation) approved
45:02 Amd 9 Mr Estathiou (JA as “political prisoner”) Lord Keen speaks against, approved
Amd 3 fails as a result
47:02 Amd 4 Lord Keen amendment withdrawn
47:16 Amd 10 Mr Estathiou (objective framework) approved
48:20 Vote on draft resolution (as amended) adopted [applause]
49:30 Session ends
♦ PACE RESOLUTION EXTRACTS:
Consortium News [Tweet] [How Parliamentarians voted]
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has passed a resolution stating that the disproportionately severe charges brought against Julian #Assange by the U.S., as well as heavy penalties foreseen under the Espionage Act for engaging in acts of journalism fall within the criteria set out in Resolution 1900 (2012) “The definition of political prisoner”.
EXTRACTS OF THE RESOLUTION
19. The Assembly also regrets that the authorities of the United Kingdom failed to effectively protect Mr Assange’s freedom of expression and right to liberty, exposing him to lengthy detention in a high-security prison despite the political nature of the most severe charges against him. His detention with a view to extradition far exceeded the reasonable length acceptable for that purpose. The Assembly regrets that the Extradition Act of 2003 removed the political offence exemption from United Kingdom extradition law, exposing dissidents and opposition members to the risk of being extradited to States prosecuting them on political grounds.
20. The Assembly considers that the misuse of the 1917 Espionage Act by the United States to prosecute Julian Assange has caused a dangerous chilling effect, dissuading publishers, journalists and whistle-blowers from reporting on governmental misconduct, thus severely undermining freedom of expression and opening room for further abuse by State authorities. To this end, the Assembly calls on the United States of America – a State having the observer status with the Council of Europe – to:
20.1 urgently reform the 1917 Espionage Act and make its application conditional on the presence of a malicious intent to harm the national security of the United States or to aid a foreign power;
20.2 exclude the application of the Espionage Act to publishers, journalists and whistle-blowers who disclose classified information with the intent to raise public awareness and inform on serious crimes, such as murder, torture, corruption, or illegal surveillance.
21. The Assembly further calls on the United States of America to:
21.1 conduct thorough, impartial, and transparent investigations into alleged war crimes and human rights violations disclosed by WikiLeaks and Mr Assange, holding those responsible to account and tackling a culture of impunity towards State agents or those acting at their behest;
21.2 co-operate in good faith with the Spanish judicial authorities to clarify all facts of the alleged unlawful surveillance of Mr Assange and his interlocutors in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
22. The Assembly calls on the United Kingdom to:
22.1 urgently review its extradition laws in order to prevent the possibility of extraditing individuals wanted for offences of political nature;
22.2 conduct an independent review of the treatment of Julian Assange by the relevant authorities with a view to establishing whether he has been exposed to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, pursuant to their international obligations.
23. The Assembly calls on the Council of Europe member and observer States to:
23.1 provide adequate protection, including asylum, to whistle-blowers who expose unlawful activities of their governments and, for those reasons, are threatened with retaliation in their home States, provided their disclosures qualify for protection under the principles advocated by the Assembly, in particular, the defence of the public interest;
23.2 refrain from extraditing individuals for charges related to journalistic activities, in particular when these charges appear grossly disproportionate to the alleged offence;
23.3 continue to improve the protection of whistle-blowers and effectiveness of whistle-blowing procedures;
23.4 review their shield laws and ensure that journalists are effectively protected from being forced to reveal their sources;
23.5 increase government transparency by reducing the scope of information that can be classified as secret and encourage the spontaneous release of information not critical to national security;
23.6 implement strict guidelines and relevant oversight mechanisms to prevent the overclassification of government documents as secret, where their contents do not warrant this.
24. The Assembly also urges media organisations to establish robust protocols for handling and verifying classified information to ensure responsible reporting, thus avoiding any risk for national security and the safety of informers and sources.
The vote:
The draft resolution (as amended in Plenary session) was ADOPTED.
♦ INTERVIEWS:
With Stella Assange & Kristinn Hrafnsson [L’Humanité]
With Stella Assange and Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir [YouTube]
♦ DISCUSSION Panels:
1 Oct 2024: Assange Defense: “Assange Testifies: Journalists React” [YouTube]
Speakers
- Matthew Hoh (host)
- Marjorie Cohn
- Kevin Gosztola
- Chip Gibbons
1 Oct 2024 Consortium News “WHAT ASSANGE SAID”
[YouTube]
Speakers
- Joe Lauria & Elizabeth Vos (Hosts)
- Mary Kostakidis
- Richard Medhurst
- Marjorie Cohn
3 Oct 2024 Consortium News “Assange Appears as Mideast Burns - w/ Craig Murray & Richard Medhurst” [First hour discusses the PACE Plenary session]
[YouTube]
Speakers
- Joe Lauria (host)
- Craig Murray
- Richard Medhurst
See also Craig Murray’s blog entry “A Very Peculiar Triumph” (5 Oct 2024)
Also an interview with Craig Murray “Why did Julian Assange come back to Europe?” (7 Oct 2024) here.
NOTE: A PDF is provided for those who would like to save this for offline viewing.
Thanks for reading Full Focus!
SUBSCRIBE for free to receive new posts and support my work.
A ‘LIKE ‘ is much appreciated too.
♦ The author
The author of this article lives in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
As a long time supporter of Julian Assange, I had become aware that many of those new to the story of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange found it hard to get a picture of the enormity and multidimensionality of the abuse that has gone on here, and what that says about the current state of the world we live in.
You can find me on Twitter at La Fleur Productions.
The Julian Assange Archives series:
This is the eleventh in a series of lengthy pieces that explore the history of Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks community via different themes:
The first was an essay “Julian Speaks: Two Voices from behind The Wall” looking at Julian Assange’s life inside the embassy, putting it in a particular historic context. Read it here.
The second was a chronological record of the (ongoing) attempts of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, to educate states and the wider world about the ongoing abuse of Julian Assange, and the wider significance of that abuse: “Nils Melzer on the torture of Julian Assange: A compendium”. Read it here.
The third was another compendium “The Persecution of WikiLeaks: Counting the Cost” covering a wide range of costs incurred by those associated, in almost any way, with WikiLeaks. In particular, it looks at the rollcall of the dead, and lists some of the many whistleblowers and truthtellers who have suffered under this regime of persecution. Read it here.
The fourth was also a compendium “Craig Murray on the Julian Assange Show Trial - Our Man in the Public Gallery”. Within it, readers can choose to go direct to the Craig Murray blog entry of interest via the index link, or to meander through the previews (and further links) which then follow. Read it here.
The fifth documents what was mostly a happy hiatus in this litany of abuse: “The Assange Wedding”. But even on that special day, the apparatus of the state managed to intrude with its petty (and not so petty) cruelties. Read it here.
The sixth compendium “A Chorus of Courage: Speaking Up for Assange”, provides a roll call of many of those who have spoken up for Julian Assange - using their professional &/or personal voices - and provides a little information about their role, together with links to some key statements. This list represents only the tip of the enormous mass of support for Julian that exists - especially at the grass roots level. Read it here.
The seventh compendium “Prizes for Assange: Praise where Praise is Due” celebrates many of the prizes and other awards showered on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks over nearly fifteen years. These give the lie to the vile smears by politicians and stenographers to power in the legacy press - that he "is not a journalist".
Read it here.The eighth compendium “Torrent of Truth: A Timeline of Assange Speech” provides a timeline of many articles and videos that record the direct speech of Julian Assange. While not exhaustive, it provides a fairly comprehensive and accessible overview of his online public life. Read it here.
The ninth part “View from the Other Side: Proponents of Prosecution” is a review of a one hour long podcast from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Australia’s flagship, state funded broadcaster broadcast June 2022. Much of that podcast is preserved and analysed as an exemplar of the kind of misinformation which is spread at the “intellectual” and academic end of the legacy press spectrum. Read it here.
The tenth part was an essay “All Roads Converge … on Julian Assange”. It looks at the place of Julian Assange - as a man, a representative of free speech and a free press, and as a symbol of the values of the Enlightenment - asking why it matters what happens to him. Why is his fate centrally related to the crises - coronavirus, Ukraine, climate - currently swirling around us? Read it here.
This very long essay is also available as an annotated reading, spread over an eight part video series. See more here.The eleventh (this post) contains an annotated TRANSCRIPT of Julian’s first public speech (1 Oct 2024) after regaining his freedom (26 June 2024), plus other details of the PACE context of that speech: “Julian Speaks: a free man among friends, at last”.
Read it here.The SERIES INDEX. This is a one-stop-shop window on the series - listing and linking to all the topics and resources provided within all parts of the archive.
See it here.
For those only now thinking about joining the chorus of courage supporting Julian - please speak up. Your efforts will be appreciated, and you will find yourself on the right side of history. The fight has not ended yet, as although Julian is now free, he still needs a pardon, and safe legal conditions in which to continue his work - when he is well enough to do so.
Many of the reports in this series, while interesting to read for those new to this topic, are mainly intended as ongoing resources: documents to bookmark, dip into, refer back to, and share with those needing sources and perspective, rather than pieces to read at one sitting. The compendia are updated regularly as new events arise, so you might want to check back from time to time.
Related readings - further recommendations
I also recommend Gary Lord’s FREE online book: "A True History of WikiLeaks".
And of course you must order a copy of Nils Melzer’s “The Trial of Julian Assange”.
Also a compilation by Karen Sharpe “Julian Assange in his own words”. [Book review]
The recent book by Kevin Gosztola is a must: “Guilty of Journalism”
As is Stefania Maurizi’s “Secret Power: WikiLeaks and its enemies”
An interesting wiki for more information is “Challenge Power”.
See also Paula Iasella’s FREE “The Evidence Files” in flip book as well as PDF files.
It was lovely and surreal to see Julian with a sun-kissed face.
A wonderful, well researched compendium. Thank hou