Last Update: 03/07/2017 17:59 +0400


Site 1JAR2 Blog Button


JAR2 Biz


WikiLeaks Archive

Jar2  by John Robles 


NYPOST: Hide the Fact Assange is Dead or at a Black Site


February 15, 2017

Old Fake Assange Account Made in France Activated, Old Video from October and Photoshopped Photograph Being Pushed as Proof of Life. Shamefully Amateurish! Real reliable site!

If Julian had wanted to prove he was alive he could have called RT or any major world media!

I tweeted to the CIA or whoever the amateurs are behind the Op to have Julian and Kristinn text me. They know my number. I do not expect an answer.

I challenged them again! Still no answer.

VIDEO they are trying to release as if it is new from last January 10th.




It is disturbing that this video has only come to light for me on the 15th of February. Key phrase "when explaining how it would be difficult to produce fake video he says there is no technology for that. However he knows as well as I that the NSA and the CIA have technology that is 25 years ahead of what we have now.





Conclusion: Julian Paul Assange has been Renditioned or is Dead

JA RIP: 2 Independent Sources - 0 Contact Since Oct.

I must underline that without physical proof or a US or Ecuadorian statement this is UNCONFIRMED




Tweeted to Pres. Trump to free John and Julian. It is all we can do.

February 06, 2017

Pamela Anderson and NYPost Now Spearheading Disinformation Operation

What are these "Yellow Press" sites? Page Six? Wonderwall?

Page Six puts out some trash, Wonderwall picks it up and then, then it spreads all over the net and soon it is true and no one should worry or question or ask proof that Julian is truly alive and in the Embassy.

I do not have a lot of time to research and go into this right now but I can tell you Page Six is owned by the New York Post which has 144 other domains. Page Six is a "Front Operation". As I am sure the NYPost is a front or is cooperating with the CIA. Here is Page Six's registrar information:



The CIA is taking out anyone who can possibly bring down the house of cards. David Shayler, a long time friend and someone who I have discussed all of the issues surrounding Assange and Snowden with was taken off Twitter. He believes it was because of his book but I think it was also because he openly questioned the real nature of Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks in an interview shortly before he was taken down. David knows me and what I have been through so this is very distressing to me.

When the initial takedown and rendition were taking place and I was publishing the Podesta e-mails and the Pizzagate material and before my server was fried this person showed up out of nowhere to obviously threaten me into ceasing my activities. His made it clear he is high up, in charge of droning (knows about McFarland?) and warned me that I should "be safe". Mike is the name the MI6 loves to use. Probably 80% of MI6 illegals go by Mike or Michael John.

I know Julian would have never traded himself for Manning. This is all fake and almost not worth discussing. I Tweeted my opinion then this came.

What Attorney is not clear and all of the previous real attorneys always identified themselves and were people I had spoken to. They are also all out of reach.

There was a Tweet where WikiLeaks was begging for "Secret CIA Files" which I will find later which is completely uncharacteristic of Julian and WikiLeaks. The organization had terabytes of files and information that were never published and were important and never once went around begging for submissions. The same with the above Tweet. Send them so we can. The style of the delivery like with Pamela Anderson story is so glib and flippant that there is no way it could be anyone inside WikiLeaks Tweeting this crap. The Tweets and WikiLeaks have become a parody of themselves. 

Here is another example. Just as MOSSAD tried to start a "Truth Site" and failed and the CIA tried to start getting truthers to come and download their "secret documents" and failed, CIALeaks is now trying to get people to believe that there is truth to be had on NPR, which is the most government controlled media around other than the VOA, all run by the BBG and serving the interests of the CIA and the establishment. WikiLeaks never once and would never cite the NPR or CNN or agree to talk to people like Hannity or Fox News.

During the Bush days Fox News was calling on Assassinating Assange and unfortunately either most of he people forgot that or do not care.   

Finally here is another example of what could not be WikiLeaks. Julian and WikiLeaks never played or commented on internal US politics. Never. The post is ridiculous. Even everyone in the organization who was involved in Julian's attempt to enter Australian politics never posted such rubbish. 

Finally we are supposed to believe that shy intellectual embattled and eclectic Assange is "dating" Pamela Anderson who has all the intellectual class and panache of an old and tired whore well beyond her expiration date.

It is tragic what they have done to Julian as we are sure he was executed and it is also tragic that the best the US Government can do is cover it up with such an unsophisticated, crude, poorly thought out and shoddy Operation. Julian deserves better, but if they are attempting to discredit WikiLeaks they are doing a wonderful job.

There is still, in my opinion the 5% chance that Julian is still alive and the .001% chance that he is really in the Embassy and we must be demanding proof of his safety. Unfortunately they are taking all of us out and there are not enough of us left to make noise. I want to say rest in peace Julian Paul Assange but as long as there is still a chance he is alive I should not do that and should rather concentrate on gathering resonance so proof is provided he is okay. It is the least we can do. We owe him that.

I suppose now I know how the families of kidnap victims feel, hoping for the best but knowing the worst and never being allowed closure, only now the kidnappers are the "authorities" and there is absolutely no one who we can turn to.     

STATEMENT by John Robles II on supposed release of Bradley Manning:

 UPDATE! 01-18-2017 20:59 After publishing the information below this morning which effectively blew their plan they are trying to maintain cover by now saying Assange will not agree to be extradited. They have already lost the game. I had them in check and mate and now they are playing checkers.


      01-18-2017 The bottom of the 9th promised released of Bradley Manning and the associated false statements coming out from WikiLeaks which is under the control of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States, as well as corroboratory statements by CIA Officer Edward (Greenberg) Snowden are in fact part of the continuing Limited Psychological Operation being running against truth seekers and whistleblowers, personified by CIA-Snowed-In. As a former member and associate of the WikiLeaks Organization I attempted to use every channel I had to communicate with anyone there. Resulting in two secret messages one of which is shown below.

     The Intel we had was that Julian Assange was renditioned, tortured, debriefed and summarily executed and this development only changes our opinion that Assange may still be alive and they will stage a supposed operation to make it look like he was extradited to the US not illegally as he was in October but at a later date. It is up to President Trump to order Assange transferred to Ecuador and allow him to be free. We do not believe that Obama has any good intentions whatsoever. He is a treacherous murderous tyrant who does anything to manipulate public opinion to the contrary. The latest developments only reinforce our belief that Snowden is on a deep illegal cover operation and running support for the CIA/US which every statement he makes proves. We are cautiously hopeful that Mr. Bradley will be released as promised and are changing our certainty level tht Assange is dead to 80%.  

        This dry and cold third person statement as well as others and the complete lack of proof Assange is actually okay allow us to base the above conclusion. Do not believe anything coming out of the CIA or from Obama. The fact that Mr. Manning will be released when President Trump is already in power and the timing which will allow the CIA to organize their cover-up of the illegal Assange rendition and we believe assassination are all part of a multi-layered Intelligence Operation with multiple objectives. There is no reason to rejoice here. When someone is actually freed and we know Assange was NOT executed then we will change out position.  

        Assange would never agree to be extradited to free Manning. Many people have died because of WikiLeaks and Assange never once offered to "give himself up" to save their lives or to guarantee "anyone's" freedom, which is a sad fact but true. The above statement is completely and 100% a fabrication intended to cover up a rendition that already happened. At some future time Assange will be shown to be alive and in the US or his body will be shown after he dies of an exploded tumor or some other such unforeseen medical condition. Do not trust anything they say. They are desperate professional liars covering up egregious crimes, assassinations and a complete and total disregard for international law, bent on making sure the assassination of over 4,000 people on 911 by building collapse and false flag is never uncovered. 

Again as NATO is building up forces on Russia's borders and as the NWO is desperate and in dying throws do not trust anything the Obama Administration says or ANYTHING the current CIA says!

         NOTE: Yes I was an associate of WikiLeaks with access to their files and backdoor access and communications with almost all of the principals which I think is more than evidenced by all of the journalistic work I did with them which you can still find on this site even though there was a clear attempt by forces in Russia to wipe any sign of my existence. I am saying this now because I am in a horrible situation myself and may be finished very soon. Assange mad a mistake by causing any kind of influence on a US election. As an Australian he really had not foundation to do so. As a former US citizen I have the foundation for and the responsibility to expose the illegality of the US. Assange did not understand this nuance and placed Ecuador in a situation where they had no moral ground to stand on since in reality foreign interference in a country's elections is illegal under international law even though the CIA and the US do it everyday. Assange was afraid in allowing others to release the information because he saw it as his way out of his impossible situation and a little bit because of his own vanity which is unfortunate. I will continue to pray and I ask you to pray that Julian, Kristinn, Christine and all of the good and persecuted people who were really fighting for the truth and not serving as double agents for the monsters at the CIA.   


This is not WikiLeaks! Someone is Tweeting about internal US politics!


Coded Message

Message from Julian Assange! The picture and another message I got which I can't divulge make me 100% certain now that Julian has been compromised. There is no one left at WikiLeaks who is free and there is no one free who has the keys for opening up the insurance files. Study the pictures above, the one on the top is my coded answer.

In Response to Message:

Julian Would NEVER Troll for Documents!

DON'T BELIEVE TV. USGOV has CGI which is 25 YEARS AHEAD of what we know about. Hannity-Assange was FAKE! I OFFER THEM TO PROVE IT WASN'T

WikiLeaks RIP

Julian Assange has been taken & Wikileaks Compromised



Assange Almost Certainly Renditioned to US, CIA has WikiLeaks

In April I wrote to Michael Ratner. Alarmed and Saddened to Hear of His Death. Condolences


Remember Michael Ratner RIP
















JAR3 Sent to Zone/John's Cat Died/Assange Lawyer John Jones Dead

Assange 'Arbitrarily Detained' Will Probably Die In Embassy

Assange to Leave Embassy on Friday

Gag Order

July 30 2014 WikiLeaks Press Release on Australian Gag Order   

Christine Assange Pleas for her Son

07-02-2015 Assange and the Truth: A Plea by Christine Assange  

"We have moved closer and closer to totalitarian rule..."


Media Operations: CIA/MOSSAD Control

01-11-2015 By John Robles II Pierre Omidyar and the Subversion of States: the End is Coming Soon

CIA analyst, advisor to Ronald Reagan during the destruction of the Soviet Union and now “propagandist for the 100% Russian Government owned Sputnik/RIA Novosti/Rossiya Sevodnya/RT” Paul Craig Roberts, who now has my job and is laughing all the way to the bank as Russian taxpayers are paying him to subvert Russia, says the terrorist attack in France was a false flag and now he is supposedly a heroic whistleblower who is out of the loop exposing government crimes. Needless to say he has not called out the US for the Boston Bombing, 9-11 or the phony “War on Terror”, but France! Yes evil France. But why is Roberts blasting France. Because France is friends with Russia. Marine Intelligence content editor for RIA-Sputnik or whatever Samuel “CIA Plant” McCulloch is obviously on board on this one. The 5th column in action. Yes these are alternative media, truth seeker, outsiders! Now let me go and puke. But wait it is worse. Remember I promised a Pierre “Color Revolutions Are US” Omidyar piece, which so cozily interconnects with the 5th column here in Moscow, well read on. Another outsider.((( Anyone will tell you if you are investigating...

Fascist Sweden Continues Obeying Its US Master

03-15-2015 Sweden Requests Assange Interview in London Before Statute of Limitations Expires  

Just as Wikileaks and Julian have been asking and offering all along. The reason Sweden has agreed now? The statute of limitations on the "crimes" he is wanted for questioning regarding will run out in August.




7 April, 2015 07:43

When Barrels of Guns Lifted, Truth Vanishes

Kristinn Hrafnsson


For the public revelations that the CIA and NSA were spying on the committee that was supposed to have oversight of their activities should be of great concern as it is a major breakdown in the system of checks and balances that should be inherently present in a healthy democracy. 

Despite all of the Snowden revelations there is also no indication that the NSA has changed its practices or made changes to how they carry out operations. By not publishing information that the public has the right to know the media has also failed and according to WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson, it is: "... an absolutely disgusting break with all the basic principles of journalism that I know of. And they claim that this is done upon the request of the US authorities for the security concerns. That is not acceptable." Unfortunately today, he says: "We have submissive and lame editorial boards that will simply do as they are told."

This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with Kristinn Hrafnsson – the official spokesperson for WikiLeaks and the number two at that organization. This is part 1 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at

Robles: Hello Kristinn! It is a great pleasure to be speaking with you again.

Hrafnsson: Nice to be talking to you John. How are you?

Robles: I’m pretty well. A lot of stuff is going on in Ukraine. We haven’t had much of a focus on what is going on on the Internet and everything. So, maybe you could give our listeners an update on what is going on with WikiLeaks, anything you can tell us, about releases?

Hrafnsson: Well, you know, we have a policy not to discuss any of the forthcoming releases. That has been our policy mostly until now. But we are still ongoing, yes, with this big fight that we have in front of us.

At the same time, the world is changing and we are seeing more and more acceptance to the message that WikiLeaks brought forth for the first time, maybe, into the public attention in 2010 with our explosive revelations that we published that year and in the following 2011.

And I believe that when we will look back in a decade or two towards this era, people will understand the massive importance of the contribution of the WikiLeaks in 2010 and the following years. We’ve opened up a new window, we’ve pried open a new window towards a big and a better understanding of the world that we live in. And there is no turning back, it is now ongoing and it is thrilling era that we live in.

It is much about democracy, fundamental values that we praise and it is absolutely a privilege to be a member of a team that is pushing this agenda into this new era.

Robles: WikiLeaks released pager messages from 9-11. Were those released just in mass or were they filtered?

Hrafnsson:That is – what? – five years ago now.

Robles: Yeah.

Hrafnsson: It is prior to my time as a member, those are revelations prior to 2010, which included, of course, the revelations pertaining to interests all over the world: the Church of Scientology, the bank of Julius Baer, the bank of Kaupthing in Iceland that collapsed, Trafigura Company which is based in Switzerland, corrupt party in Kenya Government of Daniel Arap Moi. Various the issues that were revealed in that era prior to our main focus, because our main material pertains to be the US Government and its corrupt practices and its military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and its diplomatic scores.

Robles: Can you comment on the current situation in Ukraine and the current situation with the NSA and the CIA in the US? Now, apparently some senators are calling for the CIA and the NSA to be investigated because they were spying on the senators. Can you comment on any of those issues?

Hrafnsson: That is obviously an issue that is of great concern. When you have the apparatus spying on the committee who are supposed to have an oversight of that organization, that is of course of great concern and is a major flaw in all the checks and balances that we believe are inherently present in a healthy democracy. It is a hell of breakdown. So, of course, it is of major concern.

Robles: Do you see the NSA reigning themselves in at all or are they continuing unabated, since all the Snowden revelations last summer?

Hrafnsson: There is no indication at all that the NSA has changed its practices and that there has been any major change in the way that they carry out their operations. That of course is of worry. In the political field there is a knowledge, you know, a farther widening group, that this is an absolutely appalling situation that has to be addressed. Even so, we are not seeing any drastic measures taken to curtail this activity.

And if we put this all into a historical perspective, we need to go back to 1971 and revisit the burglary of media in Pennsylvania where the FBI office was raided by the activists and the exposure was made about the corruption within the FBI under J Edgar Hoover, where more than 40% of the documents that the burglars got their hands on showed that they were spying on the political activists and basically did political spying and acts of corruption. And of course, in the same year you had Daniel Ellsberg getting the Pentagon papers into the public sphere violating his oath, as well as those burglars that violated the law. But it was all for the common good and we are all benefitting today.

This was 43 years ago, but we are revisiting the same kind of era now with Assange, Snowden, Chelsea Manning and the people who are fighting for information to get out there in order for us to understand that there is a need of change.

Robles: Do you see a difference between the mass media then and the mass media now? Because that was important that the media grabbed this information. But what about today?

Hrafnsson: If you are talking about the mass media in the States and the Western Europe, we all know that there is a severe limitation on the mass media, as of course we are all well aware of. But there are limitations everywhere I look.

Just one very clear example to highlight the situation. About ten days ago or so Washington Post broke a story based on the Snowden’s revelations about the mass interception of all voice telecommunications of an entire country. And they broke the story based on the Snowden’s revelation and their own fact-finding within secret sources that this actually was a program that was carried out with billions of phone calls being stored on hard drives on a 30-day basis. But the Washington Post did not disclose the name of that country that had been subjected to this mass program of surveillance.

That is an absolutely disgusting break with all the basic principles of journalism that I know of. And they claim that this is done upon the request of the US authorities for the security concerns. That is not acceptable. They cannot, as journalists, not disclose to the public information that is vital just because some Government officials in Washington are putting pressure on you and breathing it down your neck.

But that puts us into a perspective, 1971, 43 years ago with the Post at that time by the NY Times, that says – we do not have that era, it is gone. We have submissive and lame editorial boards that will simply do as they are told. And that is a shame.

Robles: In light of that, can you comment on… you know, I’ve talked to Jesselyn Radack before and there was an issue that she told me matter-of-factly. I didn’t want to attack her or make a big issue about it. She told me that all the journalists that were releasing Edward Snowden’s information were checking with the government before they made the releases and they were not releasing anything that the government protested to. This would be along the same line. Do you have any problem with that?

Hrafnsson: Our main policy in WikiLeaks and our understanding of our role is to get people aware of the information out there so that people can access it. I mean, it is the fundamental principle that we work upon. It is our job, our purpose as journalists to get the information out into the open so that everyone can access it.

That is the true and real nature of what WikiLeaks is all about. And this is the true and real nature, the fundamental principle of journalism. The information should be supplied to the general public. They have a right to know and we are the servants of that idea. Withholding information is not in line with that ideology.

Robles: There were some very important leaks regarding Ukraine. Can you comment on those? And I don’t think they were very much publicized in the Western media. For example, the Nuland- Payette conversation. Then, there were several leaks that were sided to Anonymous Ukraine – telephone conversations between, for example, the Latvian Foreign Minister and Catherine Ashton where they were talking about the snipers on the Maidan. What role do you see there for the people calling themselves Anonymous Ukraine? Do you think they were helping to get the information out? Do you think they’ve had an effect on what has happened in Ukraine?

Hrafnsson: No, we haven’t seen a lot of leaks coming out of Ukraine and pertaining to Ukraine’s situation coming out in the media in that country and in other places. There is always the uncertainty of verification, but certainly these leaks have played an important role.

But it is also important to keep in mind that this information is usually brought forth in some context and with some agenda in mind. It is very hard to draw upon this information and come to a certain conclusion. It is a very complicated situation that we have in Ukraine. It is extremely ill-reported upon by the Western media, the mainstream media in the West. Equally so, it is not being portrayed in any sensible, equal manner by the media on the east side either.

Robles: I guess we could argue the point. I mean, we get a lot of fresh information off the feeds and from on the ground, and from the video footage and stuff that just does not exist at all in the Western media.

Hrafnsson: I totally agree with you. The Western media is boycotting and keeping out a lot of information that should be included in the coverage of Ukraine. When there is a conflict, the first casualty in any war is truth, of course. And we have seen that in all the instances in the past – in Syria, for example. And there were a lot of lies that were built up around the Iraqi and Afghan wars that the WikiLeaks was exposing, because the truth has to be told.

Robles: Do you see any difference then? One point I’d like to underline and I think it underlines everything that is going on. For example, the Crimea. The Russian soldiers that were there, they’ve been there for over two decades and there was no invasion. I mean, I know this for a fact. They were already there. But they keep saying that it was an annexation, it was an invasion when there was a democratic referendum that people have been waiting for two decades to happen. So, it was a very happy moment for 97% of the Crimean people. there was no invasion, there was no shot fired, which is a big difference to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, I just wanted to get that out there.

Hrafnsson: Well, now you have, John. And thanks for the enlightenment and the historical context of what has just recently happened in the Crimea.

Robles: I mean, that’s what I see. If you see something different, I would love to know it. I’m sure you watch all kinds of media. So, you get a good feel of everything.

Hrafnsson: I’m in Reykjavik, Iceland. That’s my main base at the moment. And we are just dealing with all kinds of issues. My main concern is, as always, when we see the barrels of guns being lifted that truth will vanish.

Yes! you were listening to part 1 of an interview with Kristinn Hrafnsson – the official spokesperson for WikiLeaks. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at


11 April, 2015 19:23

Fascists are in Power in Europe Again

Kristinn Hrafnsson

Fascists are in power in Europe again - Kristinn Hrafnsson

© Photo: RIA Novosti/Andrey Stenin

Download audio file

The manipulation of the media by the West with regard to the situation in Ukraine and the bias that exists in media outlets worldwide was a subject discussed with the Voice of Russia by Kristinn Hrafnsson, the official spokesperson for WIkiLeaks. In the final segment of this interview Mr. Hrafnsson speaks on the issue of how one can attempt to get a balanced picture of global events and says he is concerned that fascists are in power in Europe again.

This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with Kristinn Hrafnsson. He is the official spokesperson for WikiLeaks and the number two in that organization. This is part 2 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at


Hrafnsson: It is my major concern that we are not getting accurate information out to the general public about what exactly is going on. And based upon that we are prone to all kinds of devastating scenarios, where propaganda is used to start horrible wars where people die and where children suffer. That is not acceptable and we need to make sure that through informational the truth isn't stopped.

Robles: I’m with you 100% there. And I’m sure Russia doesn’t want to start a war anywhere, in Ukraine or in the Crimea.

Hrafnsson: In March 30th in 1949 Iceland joined NATO. And in the history of the republic of the country there are only two demonstrations which were carried out which used violence in the street. The first one was on March 30th 1949 when about half of the population was rallying against joining NATO and wanted to keep independent non-aligned.

The second time when this happened was in early 2009, after the collapse of the all the banks in the country. It was almost the bankruptcy of the country and people did go to the streets and tear gas was used. So, we only have two instances in the history of the young nation since 1944.

Robles: So, what do you think is really going on in Ukraine, in your opinion?

Hrafnsson: I have no idea. I have no first hand information. I have contacts on the ground that I’ve talked to, but I am not an expert and I just cannot be a commentator on the situation there in any capacity. Although, being a journalist I know a few other journalists in Kiev. It is a situation that worries me. I’m very worried about the rise of fascist power or movement in the country, which I think is extremely worrying.

Otherwise, it is an extremely complicated situation where the more I know, the less I know. The only thing I know for sure is that the Western media and the mainstream media is not reporting accurately and with enough deft and vigor as it should be on the situation in Ukraine.

Robles: You’ve just mentioned the rise of right-wing fascist forces. So, would you agree from your sources there that that is who has taken power in Ukraine?

Hrafnsson: It is quite obvious that in the transitional power in Ukraine we do now have fascist elements, that were quite obviously fascist and are now having one hand on the very important institutions within the transitional government. We now actually have fascists in power in Europe, again. And that is worrying.

Robles: I don’t understand why Europe is not more concerned or we don’t hear much concern from Europe for, for example, Dmitri Yarosh. He is the leader of this neo-Nazi group. I tell you from the Russian perspective. He is wanted for terrorism. He was making open calls to kill Russians, Jews and blacks in Ukraine and he is running for president now. I haven’t heard any outcry from Europe at all, which is troubling for me. What do you think that is about? Just because they are following the US’ role or? Can you comment?

Hrafnsson: Things in the world in the Western mainstream media are rarely reported upon accurately and with any sanity at all. So, wherever you go around the world, you will find an instance of extremely poor reporting. That is of worry.

Robles: Where does Mr. Kristinn Hrafnsson get his news for our listeners?

Hrafnsson: On the Internet I have a smorgasbord of news sources and I will approach every source with a large dose of skepticism. I will probably not think that Al Jazeera was the best source for any news about the Arab world and the Arabs and Qatar. I would probably not think that RT would be the best source of accurate information from inside Russia. I would probably not think that Fox News would be the best reflection of what actually is going on in the US.

But you go through all these sources and having the ability and the knowledge to be an experienced reporter with 30-year experience, you see through the filters that are there and you see through your mindset what exactly is going on, and you build a picture of what does world looks like that day from that information. It is a handpicking from here and there and putting through filters, and building a full picture.

Robles: Okay, thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

You were listening to part 2 of an interview with Kristinn Hrafnsson – the official spokesperson for WikiLeaks. You can find the previous part of this interview on our website at




5 February, 20:29

The US and its Allies: A Horror Show That Must Stop – John Shipton (Part 1)

The US and its allies: a horror show that must stop – John Shipton

Download audio file

For many Australians it is embarrassing the way the Australian Government blindly obeys whatever the US tells it to do. Even joining in the US’ illegal wars. The scorched earth policy of divide and conquer, decimate and destroy, destabilize and control is in stark contrast to the efforts of the Russian Federation, the BRICS and SCO countries. In an exclusive interview with the Voice of Russia, John Shipton, the Executive Officer of the WikiLeaks Party in Australia gave his views on those issues and much more. Having just returned from a fact finding mission to Syria Mr. Shipton praised Russian diplomatic skills and Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, whose efforts he called triumphs, second to none. Mr. Shipton and the WikiLeaks Party believe that the Russian President and Foreign Ministry are forces for peace. Peace which will allow development and growth. He contrasted these positive forces with the US and its allies who wish to restrict development so that they will have no competition. He called it a “phenomenon” that the US has destroyed 73 countries and killed 26 million people since 1945 and said is must stop.

Hello this is John Robles I’m speaking with Mr. John Shipton, he’s the Chief Executive Officer of the Wikileaks Party in Australia. This is part one of a longer interview.

Robles: My first question is regarding your feelings about the Australian government’s lack of any kind of support for Julian Assange if you could touch on that…

Shipton: The Australian government’s treatment of Julian is appalling and savage. It’s been 3.5 years and still nothing is done. Even to the extent the mass Swedish mass newspaper Aftonbladet is now running a debate on whether the investigation, the questioning, was wrong. The issue of a warrant was incorrect, the European arrest warrant was incorrect and the whole matter ought to be dropped straight away. Still the Australian government won’t respond and won’t do anything.

Robles: How likely do you think that is going to happen? That Swedish authorities will drop the allegations because there are no charges, Julian hasn’t been charged with anything at all? They are just allegations. So, the whole thing is completely ridiculous.

Shipton: Yes, when they wanted him for questioning Julian went and answered their questions and they indicated that Julian was free to go, free to leave. As soon as he got on the airplane, they issued a European Arrest Warrant. These people are only acting at the behest of others.

Robles: Do you think it is likely that the Swedish authorities would drop everything in the near future?

Shipton: My feeling is that it is becoming more and more likely as the embarrassment to the Swedish judicial system increases, and as now all of the evidences is available as well as the falsification of evidence by the prosecuting investigators, and also the shopping around for three prosecutors and now finally another prosecutor has been appointed.

Robles: The fourth one now?

Shipton: Yes.

Robles: Moving away from that right now if we could. You recently were on a trip to Syria, on a fact-finding mission for the Wikileaks Party. Some of the right wing in your country were very critical of that. Can you tell us about that trip to Syria and what you saw and what that was about?

Shipton: We were well received in Syria and we spoke with a lot of ordinary people. Mostly we were concerned with the damage that sanctions do to the provision of medical health. The Australian right-wing as far as geopolitics is concerned, the Australian Government, differs not at all from the American government, from the United States.

Robles: Some people call it another lapdog for the US. Would you characterize Australia that way?

Shipton: Yes, I think it embarrasses me entirely, the way the Australian Government just obeys whatever the US requests of it, even to the extent of them backing an illegal war and invasion of Iraq.

Robles: Is there anything legally that you can do or that is being done? Surely it must be against the Australian constitution or the legal framework for the Australian government to ignore their citizen in need, namely Julian Assange. Is there anything that could be done that hasn’t been tried yet legally or constitutionally to get them to act?

Shipton: We pursue every avenue that the solicitors make available to us and lawyers make available to us, and I am sure Julian’s legal advisors do the same. But they are recalcitrant, they simply refuse to do anything.

Robles: Back to Syria and geopolitics: what is your view on Russian president Vladimir Putin and his handling of the situation in Syria and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov?

Shipton: The Russian diplomatic skills are a triumph, and with the Shanghai Cooperative Organization, the BRICs last year in Far East and this year Syria and the Ukraine. There is diplomatic triumph second to none, and in our view the Russian President and Foreign Ministry people wish to bring peace to allow development.

The US and its allies wish to restrict development so that they will have no competition. This is the truth of the matter. They just wish to have states that are dependent ill organized and not undergoing any social or industrial development at all.

Robles: What about the role of promoting war and promoting peace? How would you rate Russia as opposed to the US in Syria?

Shipton: I think Russia, because it wishes to develop and it wishes its allies to develop, is a force for peace in the world along with the BRICs.

Those who don’t want development and don’t want nations to have peace so that they can develop are the US and its allies.

Robles: And in what ways would you say it is profitable for the US and its allies to, for example: decimate and destroy countries and keep an ongoing endless war… ?

Shipton: That is the phenomenon of the US. Since 1945 they’ve destroyed 73 countries and were directly involved in the deaths of 26 million people. It is a horror show. It just must stop!

Robles: That is a lot of countries. And they just want to continue that endlessly. Can you tell us a little bit about what you saw, actually, in Syria first hand?

Shipton: First hand, we experienced the random mortar fire that happens every night as the insurgents that come into, as close as they can, into the heart of Damascus and fire random mortar shells and heavy machine gun fire and then run away.

So, 350 meters from where we were staying a mortar shell landed and claimed some lives. So, we’ve experienced that. That happened every night.

Robles: You just said these were the insurgents coming in, they come in and strike and move out, right? Did you see any Syrian military forces bombing Damascus?

Shipton: No, not at all. In fact, the people of Damascus, the Syrian people of Damascus make every effort to make life continue as normal even under the difficulties of 3 hours electricity a day.

Robles: Did you witness a mass hatred or anti-Assad feelings among the population?

Shipton: No, most of the rhetoric we experienced was distress about what is happening to the country and they focus on the involvement of Saudi Arabia in organizing and financing “the Gulf States”, in organizing and financing this terrorist plague that extends from Malaysia right through to the Balkans.

Robles: This terrorist plague you are talking about, we know Saudi Arabia is backing and controlling it, I mean Saudi prince himself admitted that he controls the terrorist groups in Syria. Of course, he is not working by himself, Saudi Arabia has the perennial support of the US. Who do you think is really behind this? Maybe a redundant question but….

Shipton: Yes, it doesn’t take much to understand the true nature… that the movement of thousands of men and the missions that are required and the movement of troops through Turkey requires more influence and logistical adeptness than Saudi Arabia has.

So, we can safely assume that as the activity in the north of Syria is next to the Incirlik base in Turkey, that NATO is involved, either passively or actively involved. And as the logistics are great, it must also be the American security services involved.

This is the technique that the US developed over the last 70 years of destroying a country from within. They don’t really invade because from their experience its unnecessary, in the case of Iraq they… I don’t know what they thought but in the case of Iraq the went in and destroyed it and made it obvious to everybody that the American military is a huge weapon with no effect.

Robles: Do you see that “internal destruction machinery” working in Ukraine right now?

Shipton: Yes, similar techniques. First of all the Color Revolutions in Ukraine’s case worked for a little while and then the Ukrainian people naturally went with their sister nation Mother Russia.

That failing, the EU in US setup an organization which has got an NGO, in your country, a non-government organization, they are financed by one or another group in America, for example the Open Society Group run by George Soros, but they have got problems.

The Color Revolution having failed now they financed the gains, the discontented and the malcontents and disgruntled into moving against the elected government of the Ukraine, an “elected government”!

And the EU and the US wish to kick out an elected government and replace it with a group that is more favorable to them.

Robles: Can you comment on that? They are supporting the worst neo-Nazi nationalist elements in Ukraine. These are people that are saying: “We can’t let the country be run by “an expletive for black people” and “expletive for Jews” and an “expletive for Russians”.

They say those people are trying to take over Ukraine and the US is supporting these people. Victoria Nuland is handing them cookies on Independent Square. And in Syria it is the same thing these homicidal maniacal murderous Al-Qaeda (lunatics really) are being supported also by the US and being armed and being called “freedom fighters”. Can you comment on this so-called “opposition”?

Shipton: To destroy a country from the inside you need savages and barbarians, and that is what all of these pseudo games are composed of.

They are really mercenaries and you may notice that they do all their savage work against hospitals, against schools, against men and women in ordinary life going about their business. Against children, that is appalling.

It is a plague that the United Nations, the group of nations must get together and stop.

Robles: You are absolutely right and I don’t think that has been brought up too much anywhere but… The same thing happened in Russia, in Beslan, where they attacked a school and killed children, I mean, in Latakia, Syria, 426 children brutally murdered in order to bring about a pretext for the invasion they wanted, and I am sure the western media, they are not wanting that to be publicized at all, no one is really calling for investigation into exactly who killed those 426 children. Unbelievable.

I would say they are cowards, wouldn’t you?

Shipton: They are cowards and also in my view they are maniacs, they are savages. The social bonds that hold us together and prevent us doing those things they intent to break.

They destroy schools… and how you subdue people. How you subdue them and make them passive is you murder the babies. This has been a policy in Iraq, in Afghanistan, I mean you don’t see it in writing but you see the policy enacted the blowing up of wedding parties, and the blowing up of funerals.

All of the things that bind groups together and make them healthy, they attack and destroy.

End of Part 1

7 February, 09:07

"We will struggle with every breath and strength in our body" - John Shipton (Part 2)

Download audio file

President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have wiped the floor with the West in every diplomatic scenario and for this reason the West is so determined and will stop at nothing to see the Olympics fail and continue demonizing Russia so that world opinion and Russia's prestige are damaged. This was stated by the Executive Officer of the WikiLeaks Party John Shipton, in an interview with the Voice of Russia. Mr. Shipton expects that President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov will silently wait for their opportunity to balance the field. He also believes that if you want to know what the western security services want one thing is to look at the work of hacks like Luke Harding which will show you which way the security services want you to look now. Mr. Shipton says that the only thing the West still has that works efficiently is the propaganda machine. He also says that countries in the FVEY have been able to monitor all of the financial transactions of terrorist organization that stretch from the end of the Philippines right up through to the Balkans, since 1985 and their lack of intervention clearly shows it serves their purposes. During the interview Mr. Shipton also reveals how the security service in Australia attempted to smear him by releases parts of recorded telephone conversations on the internet.

This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with John Shipton the Chief-Executive Officer of the WikiLeaks Party in Australia. This is part 2 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at


Robles: I'd like to get your opinion, it is kind of going around in the media right now; this book, I am sure you've heard about it, by… He was also a party to the 5th Estate smear job on WikiLeaks, that film, this book by Harding about Edward Snowden. I'd like to get your opinion on Mr. Harding, if you could, and on his so-called "inside scoop on Edward Snowden" a person he's never spoken to or had any contact with. Same thing with 5th Estate, I mean he was part of that project and he had nothing to do with Wikileaks.

Shipton: Luke Harding is a notorious Russophobe and he is one of that group of journalists that infest the Guardian, that are really close to the security services.

Everything he writes, you look at to see which way the security services want you to look now. He is associated with plagiarizing work in Russia.

Luke Harding was expelled from Russia for visiting restricted areas, in other words spying, and he moved right on in life and works with the British establishment paper that is notoriously anti-Russian. Nothing changes with those people.

Robles: In that regard it was very refreshing to hear your view on President Putin, who I think has shown through his actions, as well as Foreign Minister Lavrov and the entire Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian Government, that they are working for peace and for rule of law.

And it is sometimes disheartening for me, maybe not even sometimes, all the time, to see such a demonization in the western press, even right now about the Olympics. It seems like they've gone a full-court press to demonize the Olympics. What do you think about the Olympics in Sochi, I mean from what you know about them?

Shipton: The last thing that the West has that works efficiently is the propaganda machine. Everything else is breaking down – the financial systems are breaking down, states of warring against each other. The last thing that works somewhat effectively is the propaganda system, and even that is breaking down. But that's mass propaganda against anything Russian. Particularly, in order to make the Sochi games fail, to lessen the prestige of Russia, they will do anything.

They are not reliable partners in the management of the world at the moment.

Robles: They wanted to put US warships into Russian waters in the Black Sea. What do you think about that?

Shipton: That is just another provocation in the diplomatic game that they are playing against Putin and Lavrov.

You know, Lavrov and Putin have wiped the floor with them in every one of those little diplomatic scenarios. So, I expect that President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov will silently wait for their opportunity to balance the field.

Robles: As the Chief-Executive Officer of the Wikileaks Party, can you tell us what the party is involved in right now? What are your plans for the future with the party? What is party going to do in the next elections?

Shipton: Our job is bringing truth, or as close to the truth as you can get, to the Australian public and also to involve ourselves outside of Australia in matters like Syria, where unilateral sanctions with no UN permission, the unilateral sanctions, restricting medical supplies to men, women and children in Syria.

We wouldn't care to see ever a repeat of the question that was put to Madeleine Albright; that 532,000 children had died as a result of the sanctions in Iraq and Ms. Albright replied: "Well, we think it is worth it".

Well, we don't and with every breath and strength in our body we will struggle against those sort of sanctions being brought against societies.

Robles: Who would you say is blocking the aid to the Syrian people? This has been a very serious issue. I know who I think is doing it and we know who is doing it, but in your opinion who is blocking the aid?

Shipton: You mean to the Palestinian camp Yarmouk or generally?

Robles: To camp Yarmouk, in Syria itself, all the humanitarian aid is being prevented from reaching the intended recipients, etc.

Shipton: There is no value to the Syrian Government to stop people receiving aid. There is no value to them at all.

It is of value to the insurgents, pseudo-gangs and thieves, and groups of murderers that wander around Syria at the expense of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It is of some value to them to further ruin the social fabric of Syria. That is all they want. They don't care about people.

Robles: I see. I recently talked to David Shayler, he was a MI-5 whistleblower. Have you heard of David Shayler?

Shipton: Yes, I have.

Robles: He said that the world right now is divided into two "camps", if you would: people who seek the truth, for example, like what Wikileaks is publishing, what other sites on the Internet are publishing, and those who follow the mass media. When you mentioned Australia, you said bringing as close to the truth as possible to the people. Can you tell us about this division? Is this getting worse, is this getting better? And can you comment on the fact that the mass media, this is probably why they have demonized Wikileaks from the beginning?

Shipton: The mass media, as we all know, is failing and the shares of newspaper combines are now junk bonds. And the reason for that is because the do not publish anything truthful. And the other thing is that as their failure increases and stares them in the face, they are becoming more shrill and more notorious in order to attract what little bit of attention is still around. And further than that, there is not a war that the mass media and newspaper didn't find they could support since 1945.

So, really they placed themselves in service of the worst aspect of governments and corporations and consequently they've got into a serious decline. They still attempt to have a lot of influence but as far as we can see, if you want to know close to the truth, you only have to look, spend some time searching and looking and you'll get an idea of what is going on.

Another example the Guardian, which is a well-known newspaper around the world, they are going broke and they have just sold their most profitable division in order to sustain themselves.

Robles: Is it why they are putting out things like Harding, getting a known plagiarist to write books about people he has never met?

Shipton: I think that the Guardian is a left-wing Labour Party newspaper in England. But in order for it to continue to exist, it has to make some arrangement with the establishment.

As you saw when they published Snowden's revelations from the NSA, the secret service of MI-5 came and smashed the hard-drives on their computers. This is just an intimidation, it doesn't do anything because the information is stored elsewhere on servers. It just intimidates, that is all.

And public announcement of the information…you know, when the Guardian stops the publication, or limits the publication, as they have done with the NSA files from Snowden, stopping or limiting the publication, the loud action of the security service coming and smashing up their computers, gives them an opportunity to revile from the obligations of publication. That's what it is about.

Robles: We know why the US is viciously after Edward Snowden, why they are after Julian Assange. If you could, comment on why MI-6 is so actively interested in getting Mr. Snowden in particular?

Shipton: Because the GCHQ…

Robles: Some people call GCHQ just as a subsidiary of the NSA.

Shipton: We here have the same thing, it is called Five Eyes, the English-speaking countries – Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and America. They are all integrated, I mean the listening services and GCHQ is probably the worst.

The UK has profited for 30 years on what it extracts out of the EU and the Snowden's revelations allowed us to see what the GCHQ is doing. And it is mostly blackmail and industrial spying, that is all they are interested in, and not in terrorism. If they were interested in terrorism, they wouldn't be in it.

And another example is that since 1985 all of the inter-bank transactions have been able to be watched in real time by the NSA and the CIA and another American security service that I have forgotten the name of.

So, that is since 1985. The provision of finances to these vast terrorist organizations that stretch from the end of the Philippines right up through to the Balkans, is known, they know where the money comes from and how its transferred and clearly, under those circumstances it serves their purposes.

Robles: Now, by their own admission or lack of admission or lack of proof, the NSA, although it claims its mass surveillance "web" or whatever you want to call it, that is sucking in all the information from all of the users everywhere in the world, that it is there to stop terrorism. Although the NSA cannot cite or give proof, or even talk about one terrorist act that it has actually prevented or one terrorist group that it has actually dismantled, or caused to be dismantled.

Even with 9-11, I mean they claim to be able to get everything, they claim to be watching Osama Bin Laden, the NSA was monitoring Bin Laden and they did not pass that over to the CIA's Al Qaeda unit.

So, all this super-mega-hyper-security-anti-terrorist-state has not been able to stop one terrorist act. What does that tell us about the NSA?

Shipton: To repeat myself, the NSA is there for the industrial spying and blackmail. They are there in order to make money and to get people to do what you want. That's all they do.

Robles: I see. Have you have you been a victim of persecution and surveillance by the security services and your own government because of your work with WikiLeaks?

Shipton: Not that I know of.

Robles: Do you think you are being surveilled 24/7?

Shipton: I have no idea. You know, I speak as frankly as I can to everybody and I go about my life as though it was private. But I have no idea.

Some voice recordings of telephone conversations that I had during the election appeared on the Internet, which was quite a surprise, or excerpts from them. So, I guess, people are listening to everything.

Robles: What do you think is going to need to happen in Australia for things to change and do you see a grassroots movement in Australia that will change the leadership to something that is more just for the people?

Shipton: Not presently. I mean, I don't think the leadership is composed of bad people. Just what they are required to do is adhere to a neoliberal philosophy and follow the Washington consensus, and attend to their master their hegemon – the US. So, this describes most of what they are able to do here.

As it becomes more evident that the US empire is clearly in decline, which it clearly is, as the American empire declines, as it declines and decays, the attachment of Australia will become a little more shrill, until it realizes that Australia's security is within Asia. Not from Asia, but "within" Asia.

You were listening to an interview with John Shipton – the Chief-Executive Officer of the WikiLeaks Party in Australia. That was part 2 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at And as always I wish you the best, wherever in the world you may be.

9 February, 01:52

Western Envy of Russia and Slavs Boundless

John Shipton (Part 3)

Download audio file

Through all of his work with WikiLeaks Julian Assange has been instrumental in bringing about a revolution in the way that people perceive the world and has made it possible to see actuality better than was previously possible. After over three years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London Mr. Assange may be showing the wear of his confinement although he is well and welcoming to his guests. In an interview with the Voice of Russia John Shipton spoke about the conditions of Mr. Assange’s confined life and despite the admirable treatment of Mr. Assange by the Ecuadorians, revealed that Mr. Assange has not been outside for over three years and is forced to use special lamps and take vitamin D because of a lack of elementary sunshine. With regard to Russia and the asylum granted to Edward Snowden, Mr. Shipton praised the Russian authorities and President Putin and said the envy of Russia and the Slavic civilization by the West may be behind their continued anti-Russian stance.



This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with John Shipton, the Chief Executive Officer of the Wikileaks Party in Australia. This is part three of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at This interview is in progress.

Robles: Speaking about politicians now. These recordings that you said came out, were they used to try to smear you or demonize you; were they used by politicians, or by the security services, or why do you think they were released, and can you talk about those?

Shipton:Well they were just excerpts from conversations, and they were just to smear, yes, of course, yes, yes, whipped together by, I don’t know, somebody who doesn’t like me. And I don’t know how they got hold of the conversations but there they were

Robles: Did they try to prosecute you or anything, with those recordings, or with words taken out of the context?

Shipton:No, no. Just the only thing that happened was that they were put up on the Net, and recomposed - the wording recomposed - to make it appear that I was saying, you know saying… sentences taken out of context, to make it appear that I was doing something that I wasn’t doing.

Robles: I see. I’ve had that problem myself, actually, one phrase taken out of context, a famous incident where I said a certain person’s days were numbered in Russia, if the person continued behaving that way. And they took out ‘days were numbered’ as if I was threatening his life or something. They are very good at that.

Shipton:Yes, it can be quite dangerous, that sort of thing.

Robles: Yeah, and they are quite good at it.

Shipton:Yeah, I’d just like to say inclosing, that Julian has brought about a revolution in the perception of the world and brought the capacity to see actuality closer than we ever had before.

And I’d like to thank you John. The reason why I asked your name is because I had heard your voice so much, and read your name. When you told me your name I realized I had read it, so I am a fan for a few years. So congratulations and keep up the good work.

Robles: You are a fan of mine. Wow, thank you, sir. I’m a fan of yours and of Julian’s and WikiLeaks and all of you guys. I usually ask people that might have contact with Julian – how is he? Because I saw him, he gave an interview, he was commenting on Obama’s empty NSA speech and he looked a little worse for wear with the beard and everything. How is Julian?

Shipton: It must be getting quite wearing. I saw Julian at Christmas time, and he was well and welcoming and warm. We are going over in April, so I can let you know after April.

Robles: That would be great. I’m very honored that you heard my voice before. Listen, one more thing, and I think this is very important and people are not focusing on it and I think they deserve a huge round of applause, maybe a standing ovation. I’m referring to the authorities of the small country of Ecuador – who, they in their little embassy in London are single-handedly making a stand against the empire. What can you say about Ecuadorian authorities? Would you like to say anything to them?

Shipton:The Ecuadorians are people who have enormous courage and their treatment of Julian is just admirable. And their treatment of Julian is just admirable, and their treatment of me when I go there is welcoming and warm. I can’t imagine a finer group of people, they are just, you know, they’re very, very strong and warm and intelligent people.

Robles: Wow. What would you say about the Russian authorities and their asylum for Edward Snowden. Were you surprised by that?

Shipton:No, I admire President Putin’s colorful turn of phrase when the matter came up. And I also think he is probably correct: ‘It is like shaving a pig, in there’s not much hair and a lot of noise’.

So, and I think that the Russians acted well, and I think gathered support from ordinary people all around the world for their actions, which of course the United States and the United Kingdom are doing their best to undo this admiration with publications like Luke Harding’s book which goes to say idiotic statements like: ‘a captive of the FSB’. I mean it’s just absurd, what he’s a captive of is his native country’s determination to lock him up.

Robles: Right, right. He would have never been here if it wasn’t for the US revoking his passport when he was in Sheremetyevo airport. And the statement you said about, the quote by President Putin – ‘it was like shaving a pig’, was right on, because Edward Snowden was never Russia’s agent. He didn’t come here to provide the Russian intelligence services with all of the NSA’s secrets. So really, I mean, Russia didn’t ask for him to come here.

So, Edward Snowden,he had no relationship with Russia, he is obviously an American patriot and he would like to return there. So I was quite proud of the Russian government for taking that kind of a stance on an issue such as this.

Shipton:Me too, me too. Particularly as the envy of Russia and the Slavic civilization by the west seems to be boundless at the present time though. I did admire, I think it was Schröder, who was the Chancellor of Germany, and his closeness to Russia in building the pipeline from the north. I thought that would bring in integrationofRussia and the European economy which would bring further development of peaceful congress.

Robles: Well, and stability and better conditions for all of Europe and the people I think. Anyway if you’d like to finish up – here is your chance for the big knock-out punch if you would?

Shipton:No, I would. My hope is that, my daily hope is that Julian will be out of the embassy pretty soon and able to move around freely, that’s my only concern. That’s what we work for: the just treatment of Julian Assange- he can move about freely in the world.

Robles: Yes. Can I ask you a question now? Maybe this is a stupid question but I haven’t heard anything in any reports or seen anything but, maybe it is a silly question, but is Julian … can he go outside anywhere? Is there like an internal courtyard in the embassy or something where he can at least see the sunshine sometimes?


Robles: No?

Shipton:No. The sunshine is artificial. That’s a, a UV-light and an infrared light, and a vitamin D tablet.

Robles: So he hasn’t even been outside for over three years?

Shipton:No, since being at the embassy, he hasn’t been outside.

Robles: Oh my god, that is worse than being in prison.

Shipton:Very, very similarly except the Ecuadorians do everything they can to make the suffering bearable.

Robles: I see. Well thank God for the Ecuadorians I guess, right. OK. Ok Sir, thank you Sir, it was an honor really, thank you very much. I appreciate it.


Robles: Dosvidanya. Bye bye.

You were listening to an interview with John Shipton, the Chief Executive Officer of the Wikileaks Party in Australia. That is part three of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at Thank you very much for listening and as always I wish you the best wherever in the world you may be.




From probable cause to a hunch: illegal American surveillance – Jesselyn Radack (Part 1)

As the United States Government and its leader Obama bring out the sledgehammer and go after Edward Snowden for exposing even more illegal activities and crimes being committed by the government, shedding light on illegality which has raged like a wildfire destroying and infecting every institution of the American Government like a caner since 9-11, Jesselyn Radack, one of the first truth-seekers who was a victim of the criminal cabal that has taken over Washington, spoke to John Robles about the Snowden case, whistleblowers and the entire illegal surveillance state, one that would make George Orwell weep.

Hello, this is John Robles. I’m speaking to Jesselyn Radack, she is the National Security and Human Rights Director for the Government Accountability Project.

Robles: Hello, Jesselyn. How are you?

Radack: I’m fine and thank you for having me.

Robles: Thanks for agreeing to speak with us on such short notice. Can you tell us a little bit about what is going on right now in the U.S. with whistleblowers? Why the extreme crackdown on people who are fighting for justice and accountability?

Radack: Whistleblowers are government employees, usually, who expose fraud, waste, abuse and illegality. And President Obama entered office pledging to protect whistleblowers and, unfortunately, he has led the most vicious crackdown in history on whistleblowers using the espionage act (one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against an American) to go after people who have revealed information that is of interest to the public, but that has, unfortunately, embarrassed the government, or worse yet, exposed its illegality.

Robles: Bradley Manning, those revelations, they exposed huge crimes by the government. Why has the U.S. government not gone after those responsible for these crimes, and has gone after the whistleblowers?

Radack: In terms of why they haven’t gone after the people who perpetrated torture and secret surveillance and war crimes, Obama takes a posture of “We’re gonna look forward, not backwards”. But with whistleblowers, they have gone after them in most heavy-handed of ways.

I think the reason for this is that once you’re in power, as opposed to being a candidate, once you are in power: power has a corrupting influence. I think when Obama came into office people saw him as weak on National Security and Intelligence. So he very much was trying to please those communities. And those communities for years have wanted to go after people they perceive as leakers.

I think it was a backdoor way for Obama to criminalize journalism and to go after journalists, because journalists appear in every one of these criminal indictments and it has been a way to create a bad legal precedent for going after journalists. And I think in reality it has functioned as a backdoor way to an Official Secrets Act which we have lived without for 200 years in this country and which is antithetical to a free and open democratic society.

It has a lot of people perplexed, and a lot of people worried. Yet to the extent that people are worried the government plays on their fears and continues to engage in fear-mongering by saying: “We are doing this to protect you and to help you.”

So there are a number of civil liberties infringements that have occurred since 9-11, that have been cleverly disguised as things that will protect us and keep us safe. When the point of fact: they only serve to invade our privacy and curtail our civil liberties.

Robles: Can you give us some examples for some of our international listeners?

Radack: Sure. In the examples are: Airport Security Theatre, where people have to take off their shoes and can’t carry anything more than 3 ounces and have to have their bodies x-rayed. It’s a bit extreme and hasn’t been shown to have prevented a single terrorist attack, in fact it does not do anything but harass American travelers.

You know, all Americans, I think, are willing to give up a certain degree of privacy, but they certainly haven’t consented to have all of their personal electronic information, all of their electronic data: phone calls, e-mails, text messages, monitored by the government.

Again, it’s a complete anathema to a democracy. They are infringements, I mean for example: every time a car enters Washington D.C. a photo is taken of its license plate, which sounds harmless, but it’s creepy after a while.

Some of this stuff is just not what you do in a democracy. The monitoring that goes of people in terms of geo-locating them through their I-Phones and a lot of this has been done in secret.

Some of it is overt and you can see how silly it is, like the airport security measures, that come and go and every time there is a terrorist attacker like: “Well, the shoe bomber! Okay! Now we’re going to make everybody take off their shoes!”

What do you when you have the underwear bomber? Are going to make everyone take off their underwear? I mean there’s a sort of a knee-jerk reaction but also the harvesting of information and trying to lessen people’s privacy in a number of different spheres has been a result of this.

I myself was on the no-fly list for a number of years, because I had spoken out in favor, I mean I was a lawyer, I was an ethics advisor, who had revealed that our first capture in the war on terrorism, the so-called “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh, should have a lawyer and because of that, because I made that publicly known, I ended up being punished severely, by being made the subject of federal criminal investigation, referred to the agencies that licensed me to be an attorney and put on the no-fly list.

Well, that does nothing to keep America safe. It does everything to try make an example of me to other people to not say anything against the government. And, unfortunately, the farther away we move from 9-11 the less things like that would happen, but when it comes to people who dissent, and who speak out, or God help you, if reveal information that embarrasses the U.S. or expose crimes it’s committing.

They are now prosecuting people and doing so under the Espionage Act and these people face the rest of their lives in jail. So one of them Mr. Snowden who was ordered to go into another country, in the land of free speech, a citizen feels he has to go to another country to make revelations about the government wrongdoing.

And then the president launches a worldwide manhunt that maybe would have been appropriate for Osama Bin Laden, but against a whistleblower. You know, that is behaving in an authoritarian, imperialist kind of way, not like a democracy.

Robles: They have just completely gone over the top with Snowden. What is so damning about his revelations? Why is the U.S. government so ready to… for example: threatening countries all over the world? They diverted the aircraft of a sovereign leader. Why the reaction? Basically, what I’ve read, what I’ve heard about Mr. Snowden’s revelations; it’ something we all thought was going on anyway, of course, it’s worse than most people thought…

Radack: Well, most of the people in the U.S. don’t think that the U.S. is monitoring hundreds of millions of its own citizens who are suspected of no wrongdoing.

What should have happened and what happened initially, for the first couple of days, is people were up-in-arms, they were like: “What is going on? This is totally inappropriate!” Because again, that’s another thing, they’ve lowered the standard they do need to monitor someone from probable cause, to probable suspicion, to reasonable suspicion, to maybe you have a hunch. They might be doing something bad, to practically nothing. And people have issues with that.

He’s coming down so hard on Snowden and on Manning because they have revealed major illegality, and war crimes being committed by the government of the United States and obviously the president wanted to make examples of people like my client Thomas Drake, the first of the Espionage Act prosecutions. Manning cam, I think he was like the 4th and then now with Snowden.

Really it’s embarrassing and it’s deplorable that the U.S. is engaged in this overkill. They go after someone who basically revealed what are actually big illegalities in America. We have numerous laws that say you cannot spy domestically between two people, within the nation, you can spy on foreigners, but not for domestic communication.

Robles: They’ve legalized extrajudicial executions so I mean this shouldn’t be surprising.

Radack: It shouldn’t be I mean there is a lot of stuff… There are also a lot Americans who are also apoplectic about drones and about the United States, and the president, one person advocating to himself the power to play prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner of anyone on the planet. That’s a huge problem coming from a country that purports to believe in due process.

And I think because of the government being the ones who have the microphone, we don’t realize, people in other countries may not realize that when Venezuela granted asylum the first day a number of people in a bar broke out cheering, and that 55% of Americans believe that Snowden is a whistleblower. And this is total overkill and it’s desperate on the part of the United States and we look at best extremely inept and foolish and at worst we look like the bully that we are behaving like.

 You were listening to an interview with Jesselyn Radack, the National Security and Human Rights Director for the Government Accountability Project, you can find part 2 on our website at Thanks for listening and I wish you the best!




13 October 2012, 16:46  

Gillard's Wikileaks Comments Defamatory

Greg Barns President Australian Lawyers Alliance

Gillard's Wikileaks comments defamatory - Australian Lawyers Alliance President

Download audio file

Greg Barns, the President of the Australian Lawyer's Alliance talks about the legal aspect of Assange's case and gives an Australian perspective on the case. He also calls Julia Gillard's comments 'defamatory' and points out that, from day one the Swedish Government and the Swedish prosecutors have behaved appallingly in this matter.

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Greg Barnes. He’s a barrister (or a lawyer) and the Director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, in Australia.


WikiLeaks is exploring the possibility of suing Julia Gillard for defamation. Do you think this is a real possibility?

Certainly the comments that Mrs. Gillard made in 2010 which were that Mr. Assange had committed criminal offences against Australian law. She knew certainly at some point, either when she made or repeated those comments, that, that was false, and certainly from that perspective it has a defamatory element to it. The problem that Mr. Assange has got though is that in Australia you have to issue a defamation proceedings within one year of the publication of the remarks, or you can get an extension from the court to up to three years, but it would be unlikely, I would have thought, that he would get that extension given that he’s had a legal team working on a range of cases for him and he has known of those remarks since 2010. So, he has some procedural difficulties in getting his claim up.

How does his being granted asylum affect his status in Australia as a citizen, etc., from a legal standpoint?

His citizenship is not affected by his pursuing asylum, and he really doesn’t have any claim against the Australian Government. One thing the Australian Government hasn’t done is rely on the doctrine of diplomatic protection which is an international law doctrine, which says that: when a country believes that one of its citizens is being subjected to a cruel and unusual punishment or torture in an overseas country, it can step in and directly negotiate with that Government to try and look after its own citizen.

In this case the Australian Government could step in if it wanted to with the UK and Sweden and indicate that it is concerned about Julian Assange being handed over to the Americans, like Bradley Manning – the person who is alleged to have leaked the information to WikiLeaks has been subjected to very cruel punishments in a lead-up to his trial, and it could make those representations to the UK Government and to the Swedish Government has chosen not to. So, it certainly hasn’t done all that it can to protect Julian Assange as an Australian citizen.

Can he sue the Government?

He can’t sue the Government, he really has no recourse against the Australian Government in the courts. It is really, like a lot of the international law doctrines, they’re discretionary, and it is really a matter of putting pressure on the Australian Government to get them to move to assert the authority which they have got, and all nations have, to protect one of their citizens when they’re at risk of being tortured or are being tortured.

The Ecuadorians offered to take Julian to the Ecuadorian Embassy in Sweden, they refused. What do you make of that?

I think the Swedish Government, from day one and the Swedish prosecutors behaved appallingly in this matter, they have pursued Julian Assange in a way that they would pursue no other person for these types of offences, and they’re not even offences but merely allegations. And they’ve confirmed in the last few weeks, the fact that they’re not interested in a diplomatic solution to this matter. They are determined to get Julian Assange back to Sweden without any asylum mantel over his head. And in my view, and I think most people think this: he’ll be handed over to the Americans by the Swedes and I think that’s why the Swedes have continued to act the way they have. It’s been an appalling performance from a country which prides itself on taking seriously human rights.


They haven’t charged him with anything?


Apparently they can’t. They don’t have a case against him as far as I know.

My understanding is that the case against him is very flimsy, that the witnesses’ statements are contradictory, that the motives of some of the witnesses have been called into question. Certainly it looks an extremely weak case from Australian perspective and even a perspective of a developed world country which relies on the rule of law you would have thought it was a very, very weak case. And one has to wonder why Sweden is pursuing Julian Assange in the way it is. As I said if he weren’t Julian Assange it would not be pursuing him for these types of matters because the case is so thin against him. The Swedish authorities in any other case would be saying simply: look, let him go.

Apparently it’s so thin they can’t even charge him with anything.

The case is very thin. It’s being pursued politically by prosecutors pursuing their own political agenda and lawyers pursuing their own political agenda. And it is an appalling case and as I say Sweden is not interested in justice for Julian Assange, Sweden’s role in this has simply been to get him back there, and hand him over to the Americans. And I think their conduct in the last few weeks has confirmed that.

Regarding the stalemate, the situation right now between the Ecuadorian Government and the UK authorities, is there any way out of that that you see realistically in the near future?

I don’t think there is any way out of it but if the Australian Government would have intervened… it’s their citizen. Australian relations with the UK and the US and Sweden are extremely good. It could broker some form of settlement but the settlement hangs mainly because it doesn’t want to offend its great alliance with the US and it’s left Julian Assange swinging. I think Australia is part of the key to a solution. As I said Australian Government has shown no inclination of getting involved.

And they still don’t, and you don’t see that happening in the future?

I don’t see that happening in the future unless there is greater public pressure to try and bring Julian Assange home, back to Australia. And that’s the sort of pressure that Assange’s supporters are now seeking to bring about.

What’s the mood there in Australia, I mean towards the case and towards Julian? Has it changed any since he was granted asylum?

There was a TV program on Australian television last Sunday night which was essentially a dramatic portrayal of Julian’s younger days and how he came to be a hacker and then his work with WikiLeaks. That I think has generated some support for Julian. And I think generally speaking most Australians think what is happening to Julian Assange is unfair. But what that needs to do – that pressure now needs to be brought to the attention, of both Government and the opposition parties here, so that they begin to act on this because at the moment they show no inclination of doing anything to upset the United States. And I think they’ll only do so if there is a considerable public pressure.

What about international pressure?

I think international pressure is also extremely important. And what Ecuador is representing is the Alliance, if you like, of Non-Aligned Nations who are saying to the United States: that there are broader human rights issues at stake in the Assange case - freedom of speech being one of them - and that he ought not to be pursued by Sweden, the United States and Britain under the ruse or guise of trumped-up allegations in Sweden, simply to get him back to the United States where we all know there’s a sealed indictment and a Grand Jury that’s been meeting over a number of months to determine the course of the case against him in the United States.

Julia Gillard’s comments, did they actually in reality prevent MasterCard customers from making donations?

Well, they certainly didn’t help. But any legal actions would have to be brought by a legal entity associated with WikiLeaks, not by Julian Assange. But certainly Ms. Gillard’s comments did not help when it came to the blockade by credit card companies and banks because they were used as a basis for saying that these companies wouldn’t take contributions to WikiLeaks.

Thank you very much, Greg. I really appreciate it.

Thanks John

This is John Robles, you were listening to an interview with Mr. Greg Barnes. He is the lawyer and the Director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, in Australia.

Read more:


12 October 2012, 14:38  

WikiLeaks’s Possible Case Against Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard

Scott Ludlam - Senator

Download audio file

Australian Green Party Senator Scott Ludlam, granted the Voice of Russia an exclusive interview in which he discussed the possible case against Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the political aspects in Australia regarding Wikileaks, Julian Assange and whistleblowers.

I’d like to ask you your opinion about the possibility of Julian Assange suing Julia Gillard. Do you think this was a stunt or do you think there is a real possibility of this?

I don’t think it’s a stunt. I’d probably leave it to the lawyers to decide the chances of that action – what I am aware of from a legal perspective – the comments that Prime Minister Gillard has made are highly prejudicial against the backdrop of senior United States officials from the administration and also from senior media figures. And also senior political figures in Sweden have made this case highly prejudicial to Julian Assange, effectively preemptively declaring him guilty. Now I know why, if you were in the legal profession, if you were interested in due process being followed, why you’d be very concerned about such statements being made.

Is there going to be any recourse that Julian might have to counter all this?

I think that ultimately the recourse – if he ends up being dragged back to the United States and prosecuted – I hope really the recourse will be what it is about the United States legal system and protection for freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the presumption of innocence. I hope we’ll fall back on those constitutional protections of which the US citizens are justifiably proud. The legal protections that are afforded to journalists and freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution should clearly prevail in the case of a publishing organization that was doing its job. I hope it doesn’t come to that. I think what this administration needs to do is take a deep breath and simply drop any proceedings that are occurring against Julian Assange or anybody else associated with the WikiLeaks organization.

You just said he might be dragged back to the United States. You are not very confident about his asylum in Ecuador. Do you think he’ll get out of the embassy?

I just don’t think he wants to spend the rest of his life in the embassy. I’m extremely grateful to the Ecuadorian authorities who have taken the time to do what the Australian government never bothered to do, which was to investigate Mr. Assange’s claim that he could well be subject to persecution, to arbitrary incarceration and potentially even torture if he was transferred back to the United States. As an Australian citizen and as somebody who has met Julian Assange, I’m extremely grateful to the Ecuadorian authorities who have done that. But he doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in an embassy. The British government quite clearly, I think, at this stage needs to broker an agreement with Swedish authorities so that those matters can be laid to rest and the prosecutors in Sweden are given access to Mr. Assange in the embassy quarters perhaps, or via video-link-up so that those matters can be finally dealt with.

Have you heard of anything from the Australian government as far as trying to convince the UK authorities to give him safe passage to Ecuador?

No. The short answer to your perfectly reasonable question is no. The Australian government wishes this wasn’t happening. Is pretending that’s this is a simple matter of Julian Assange being entangled in legal proceedings in Sweden. It’s effectively denying that the United States government has any claim on Julian Assange. They’re denying the existence of the grand jury that was established in Virginia at the end of 2000 and they are pretending that none of this is happening. I don’t think there’s been any attempt to come to some form of an agreement with the Swedish prosecutors.

I was hoping that maybe the Australian government had finally decided to show him some support. Does Julian Assange have any recourse under Australian law where he could, for example, sue the government for not providing him the support they should have?

I have not heard that discussed actually but that doesn’t necessarily mean those considerations haven’t been made. To be honest, I don’t think it should come to that and I’m not even certain that what he needs at the moment is legal support. I think he needs political and diplomatic support. The simplest way to resolve these matters, in my view, is for the Australian government, perhaps even when Secretary Clinton is here in Australia next month, is to get an agreement from the United States that they won’t proceed to any kind of extradition proceedings. If they were to do that, if there’s an agreement that the United States doesn’t intend to prosecute Julian Assange, that then makes the matter of travelling back to Sweden if necessary to resolve those issues and have those matters finally heard. My understanding is that things would really resolve then. The key question here has always been why the Australian government has never sought an undertaking from our allies the United States that they won’t to prosecute an Australian publisher for doing his job.

Have relations with the United States or with Ecuador, for that matter, changed since he was granted asylum?

The relationship between Australia and the United States is very strong. Most Australians, I think, have a great affection for our allies in the United States, and that goes back through generations. And that’s just something that unfortunately is actually being done some damage to based on the way this matter is being handled. As I have said before, the protections afforded under the US Constitution for, first, free speech and for freedom of association, freedom for publishing and so on, are protections that are actually exemplary around the world. It’s really sad to see those traditions, which I think most American citizens are actually very proud of, being damaged by this administration and that I think, perhaps, is one of the more far-reaching consequences of the way this administration has pursued the case.

Do you think it’s just this administration or the US government in general, as this all started under Bush?

As an Australian citizen I probably don’t have a front row seat. The two versions of the Patriot Act were written under the Bush administration but the fact remains that President Obama has prosecuted more government whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. That’s a terrible indictment. That is extraordinarily unfortunate that a democrat president is doing that. And I think it’s obviously doing harm to the reputation of this organization and clearly it’s setting out to destroy it, but I think it’s also doing harm to the reputation of the United States around the world, in that, to my mind, as an Australian citizen as an ally of the United States, the principle that you may disagree with somebody, but you defend to the death their right to say it, is something that we’ve actually seen not just written on paper, we’ve seen concrete expressions of that from time to time in the US policy and the US domestic law. It’s an extraordinary shame to be seeing that undermined and eroded by the way that Julian Assange is being treated.

Has this case had any resonance in Australia with laws regarding whistleblowers and freedom of the press?

Whistleblowing legislation in Australia was something that was promoted with great fanfare three or four years ago when there was a change of government after 2007 and then it disappeared. That matter was actually raised in the Australian Senate today and was merrily dismissed by the government. There are no formal clauses of protection for whistleblowers at the moment and in a number of instances these people have been treated very, very badly. One guy comes to mind who blew the whistle on really important security holes in Australia’s major airports. His life has been ruined. He blew the whistle and was later found to be absolutely vindicated. Major changes were made in the way that airport security was handled in Australia. His life has been destroyed. It’s just one case that I know of the real urgent need for whistleblower protection here in Australia.

That was a case where he was working in a public interest, I assume?

What it comes right down to it most whistleblowers are operating in the public interest. You don’t put yourself and your career at that kind of risk for nothing. It’s interesting to note that Private First Class Bradley Manning, who is alleged to be the whistleblower for some of the material later released by WikiLeaks, wasn’t doing it out of some kind of sense of personal aggrandizement and obviously this evidence is yet to be tested and no conviction has been found. But the material that has been put in the public domain suggested he was just horrified at war crimes that were perpetuated by US military activities in Iraq. And those are things that in democratic countries we should really look after the individuals who put themselves in harm’s way to make sure that the truth is told whether it was Bradley Manning or not was the source of that material, he’s been treated absolutely terribly and I suspect the way he was incarcerated and dealt with while he was held in solitary confinement. Probably, was important in the way the Ecuadorian authorities formed their view about the risks faced by Julian Assange.

What’s your opinion on the fact that nobody really has been prosecuted for – you’ve just mentioned – war crimes that were exposed by WikiLeaks?

I think it exemplifies everything that has gone wrong, doesn’t it? Nobody who has been identified in the massacres in Iraq, serious massacres, in which men, women and children were murdered by traumatized American forces and then air-strikes were called in to destroy the evidence, for example, or the matters that were revealed in the videotapes of the Apache strikes in Iraq. Nobody has been prosecuted as a result of any of those actions which have been clearly documented and yet it’s the whistleblowers who are the ones who are facing prosecution. That’s a matter that won’t be set to rest easily.

What could be done to remedy that injustice? Is there anything we can do?

I think these are matters for the United States people, this is not something that I can fix as an Australian. We’ve got our own series problems down here in Australia. I believe in democratic processes in the United States it’s one of the world’s oldest democracies. It’s shown an extraordinary capacity for renewal over a period of time. And in many instances we’ve taken our lead from the protection afforded citizens and some really important progress that has been made in the United States that has then been reflected around the world. I hope these issues form a part of the forthcoming presidential elections. I don’t see it occurring at the moment but this is something that the American people really have to resolve. It can’t be fixed from the outside.


3 October 2012, 11:00  

Is Assange Running for the Office of US President?

Wikileaks exclusive press release

Is Assange running for the office of US President? Wikileaks exclusive press release

Once again being threatened by the US Pentagon, which is set on advancing its own extra-territorial agenda and subjugating the world to the US’ will, Wikileaks and Julian Assange have decided to fight back against the US’ unilateral stance that the entire planet and all of its citizens are under its jurisdiction. Wikileaks has decided to do so during the US Presidential elections, offering the US electorate the choice of more of the same, or supporting the truth, for it is only the truth that can bring about change.

Julian Assange and Wikileaks have decided to intervene in the US presidential elections offering the American electorate and the world real “Hope” and what may be their only chance for real “change”. Not the “Change We Can Believe In” or the “Hope” of Obama’s last presidential campaign, we won’t even mention the hopelessness being offered by the Republicans, but a real chance to change the policies and the actions of the US government by exposing what they would rather the world did not know.

Is Julian running for the office of US President? Can an Australian, trapped in an Ecuadorian Embassy in the United Kingdom, run for the presidency of the United States? The answer is no and no. It is much more complicated and actually much more honest than that.

Wikileaks and Julian Assange have been the subject of US persecution for so long that some of us may forget a very simple fact that for some reason has been lost in the global debate. The US has no right whatsoever, not now and not ever, to go after anyone at Wikileaks. The fact of the matter is quite simple, the United States of America has no jurisdiction over anyone involved in the case they have fabricated against Wikileaks, no matter how they want to stifle freedom of speech and the press, and no matter how much they want to portray it as a crime that the malfeasance and war-crimes of the US Government are revealed, they simply do not have jurisdiction. Period, end of discussion.

Wikileaks and Julian Assange have finally decided to attack this point head on are now placing, as they put it: “the Obama administration within our jurisdiction.” Wikileaks claims that being subjected to laws without representation is an injustice to Americans, which is exactly what the US has been attempting to do to Wikileaks.

Nowhere have I seen in the public debate questions being raised as to how in the world can the US have the unmitigated gall to go after someone for violating some archaic internal US law like the Espionage Act of 1917 when that person and his organization have absolutely nothing to do with the United States and when their actions were not committed on US soil.

The United States has long ago stepped way outside of its own bounds and has unilaterally decided that the entire planet is under its jurisdiction. We could ask this question about almost anything the US does unilaterally anywhere in the world. For example in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria and in even here in Russia, what right does the United States of America have in dictating to the world what it should do? Under what right and under what jurisdiction does the US have to tell Syria who their president is? Under what right does the US have to fund uprisings all over the world and assassinate the leaders of sovereign nations, or for that matter even a Taliban warlord in Afghanistan?

The US has no right, and every unilateral invasion of a sovereign country, and every single drone strike and every single person that the US and its military adventures around the planet have killed are crimes against all humanity. The US has never had the right under any law but their own to carry out any of these things.

Sadly the world has grown accustomed to be subjugated and dictated what to do by the United States of America. This has been going on for decades but the fact is that people are beginning to wake up, slowly but surely, and they are beginning to realize that they are being subjugated and their countries and rights are being taken over by the US. This is embodied by what has happened to Julian Assange and those at Wikileaks and many others the world over, including yours truly.

The United States arrogantly and imperialistically expects you and I, citizen of the world, to bend to their will and do their bidding and allow them to do what they like in your country and in any country they please, and if they can not do so openly they will use whatever tools they have at their disposal to meet their goals. For Wikileaks this means keeping quiet and according to the Pentagon destroying documents the US Government does not want anyone to see.

The arrogance and utter insanity of it all was underlined last Friday, September 28th, when the US Pentagon again threatened WikiLeaks. According to Julian Assange: “Pentagon spokesman George Little demanded WikiLeaks destroy its publications, including the Iraq War logs which revealed the killings of over 100,000 civilians.”Assange also says that Little told him “… continued possession by WikiLeaks of classified information belonging to the United States Government represents a continuing violation of law”.

A “continuing violation of the law”? When did US law apply to extra-territorial cases? When did the entire planet and the 8,500,000,000 or so citizens of the world who are not Americans get together and decide that they would abide and adhere to US laws and allow the US to arrest, kidnap, incarcerate, torture, prosecute and persecute them as it saw fit? I must have missed that one.

We saw this extra-judicial, extra-territorial arrogance applied to others, for example Victor Bout and Constantin Yaroshenko, Russians entrapped in and kidnapped from, third countries and we see this every day in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and anywhere else the US is fulfilling the kill orders of their “Commander in Chief”. The man who received a Nobel Peace Prize yet signs a daily “kill list”.

Wikileaks has thus entered the US election process to ask US citizens and the citizens of the world to support them economically and politically and support their efforts at getting the truth out. Yes the truth, something that the US Government has long claimed to have a monopoly on as well.

According to Wikileaks the US “Democratic” Party is “… building a state within a state, placing nearly 5 million Americans under the national security clearance system. It has classified more documents than any previous administration, classifying even the process used to decide who will live and who will be killed. The U.S. administration hurtles towards dystopia: secret laws, secret process, secret budgets, secret bailouts, secret killings, secret mass spying, secret drones and secret detention without charge. The collapse of the Soviet Union could have led to the withdrawal of the security state but without moral competition from another system, it has grown unchecked to influence almost every American. Four more years in the same direction cannot be tolerated.”

Julian Assange failed to mention one thing, and this is the most important fact, the growth and malignancy of the US system has affected and influenced not only “almost every American” but also most of the world in one way or another. Should this unilateral “global-judge-jury-and-executioner” be allowed to continue on the path of global domination and subjugation of the entire planet? The answer is no.

Julian Assange has also once again exposed Obama’s hypocrisy stating that it was Wikileaks’ revelations that: “… forced the U.S. out of the Iraq War by exposing the killing of Iraqi children causing the Iraqi government to strip the U.S. military of immunity, which forced the U.S. withdrawal.” This is backed up not only by the Afhgan War Files but also by the Global Intelligence Files.

Assange also says, and this completely flies in the face of all US claims: “It was WikiLeaks’ revelations and pan-Arab activists, not the Obama administration that helped to trigger the Arab Spring. While WikiLeaks was exposing dictators from Yemen to Cairo, Vice President Joseph Biden was calling Hosni Mubarak a democrat, Hillary Clinton was calling his government “stable” and the U.S. administration was colluding with Saleh to bomb his own people.”

So as Julian Assange and millions of others now believe: if you want real change in Washington it doesn’t matter what party you vote for. What is truly important is that you support the truth, for as a wise man once said; “It is the truth that shall set you free.”

The URL for the WikiLeaks Donate 2012

Voice of Russia publishes WikiLeaks’ press statement:


WikiLeaks Press Statement

WikiLeaks enters U.S. election campaign

Last Friday, on Sept 28, the Pentagon again threatened WikiLeaks. Pentagon spokesman George Little demanded WikiLeaks destroy its publications, including the Iraq War logs which revealed the killings of over 100,000 civilians. Little said “continued possession by WikiLeaks of classified information belonging to the United States government represents a continuing violation of law”. The Pentagon also again “warned Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks” against “soliciting” material from U.S. military whistleblowers.

In response WikiLeaks has decided to intervene in the U.S. election campaign.

The United States government claims Mr. Assange and the WikiLeaks organization are within its jurisdiction. In reply, we place the Obama administration within our jurisdiction. All American school children are taught that being subject to laws without representation is an injustice. This is the backbone of the American Revolution. We claim our representation and now initiate a campaign to transform Democratic and Republican votes into economic and political support for WikiLeaks and its 1st Amendment values. This election day, do not vote for the Republican or Democratic parties. Instead, cast the only vote that matters; vote with your wallet - vote for WikiLeaks.

The Democratic Party promised to open government. But instead it is building a state within a state, placing nearly 5 million Americans under the national security clearance system. It has classified more documents than any previous administration, classifying even the process used to decide who will live and who will be killed. The U.S. administration hurtles towards dystopia: secret laws, secret process, secret budgets, secret bailouts, secret killings, secret mass spying, secret drones and secret detention without charge. The collapse of the Soviet Union could have led to the withdrawal of the security state but without moral competition from another system, it has grown unchecked to influence almost every American. Four more years in the same direction cannot be tolerated.

The Obama administration continues to conduct a “whole of government” investigation of “unprecedented scale and nature” into WikiLeaks and its people. It has fuelled the extrajudicial banking blockade against the organization and has held an alleged WikiLeaks source, Bradley Manning, in conditions that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, found amounted to torture. Mr. Assange has been formally found to be a political refugee, but U.S. ambassadors warned countries like Switzerland not to offer him asylum. President Obama has called Bradley Manning guilty before trial and Vice President Biden has named Julian Assange a 'hi tech terrorist'. The Obama-Biden campaign brags of having prosecuted twice as many national security whistleblowers as “all previous administrations combined”. This is not acceptable.

Politicians always say your decision, come election-time, will determine the future. But as has been seen with the Obama administration, deciding on who gets into formal office is not a meaningful choice, because when you vote your party into government you also vote the government, including all its agencies and friends, into your party. At the same time, parties taking office are concurrently eliminated as the restraining voice of opposition.

But there is another option.

Government agencies and corporations know that knowledge is power. That is why they spend literally billions to keep their plans and actions secret from all of us.

They know that together we can force them to act differently.

It was WikiLeaks’ revelations - not the actions of president Obama - that forced the U.S. administration out of the Iraq War. By exposing the killing of Iraqi children WikiLeaks directly activated the Iraqi government to strip the U.S. military of immunity, which in turn forced the U.S. withdrawal.

It was WikiLeaks’ revelations and pan-Arab activists, not the Obama administration that helped to trigger the Arab Spring. While WikiLeaks was exposing dictators from Yemen to Cairo, Vice President Joseph Biden was calling Hosni Mubarak a democrat, Hillary Clinton was calling his government “stable” and the U.S. administration was colluding with Saleh to bomb his own people.

And it was WikiLeaks’ revelations, not the White House that led to the reform of the largest children's hospital network in the United States. 

Last year, the Pentagon got $662 billion for its 2012 war chest. For WikiLeaks to continue its work to bring transparency to powerful institutions through the mass publication of leaks with the greatest potential to lead to more just forms of governance, we need to build a bigger 'war chest' too.

In early December 2010, WikiLeaks was receiving $120,000 per day in donations from the general public. In response to pressure from Washington, and entirely outside the law, financial institutions, including Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of American and Western Union, erected a banking blockade against WikiLeaks, stripping the organization of 95% of its funding. Although WikiLeaks has won every court case to date against the blockade, these Washington linked institutions continue to appeal.

So, for the next 34 days, beginning on October 3 2012, we are launching a new fundraising campaign running up to Election Day, 6 November.

You can still donate to WikiLeaks using a variety of easy methods, including workarounds for Visa, MasterCard and PayPal. These donations go to fund WikiLeaks' publishing and infrastructure costs and our legal costs to fight the financial blockade. We are expecting an answer shortly on Visa's appeal against the Icelandic court's ruling that declared their blockade illegal, and decision makers are expected to meet soon on our European anti-trust banking case.

If you wish to contribute to Julian Assange's legal defence costs, you can still use your credit card but you will need to make a separate donation to the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Staff Defence Fund, administered and audited by Derek Rothera & Co. Full details are on our donate page. You can also donate to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund from our site.

"The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting", Milan Kundera.

 Julian Assange

Read more:


1 October 2012, 13:06  

Julian Assange Calls Obama a Hypocrite

Kristinn Hrafnsson

Julian Assange calls Obama a hypocrite - interview,_Brisbane,_Australia_110623.jpg

Download audio file

In the ongoing dialogue between the countries, the Ecuadorian authorities are trying to find a solution for Julian Assange, aimed at granting him safe passage to Ecuador. The official spokesperson for WikiLeaks talked with the Voice of Russia about the continuing fight against the banking blockade and explains why Assange calls Obama a hypocrite.

Part I 

Part II

Hello, this is John Robles. I’m speaking with Mr. Kristinn Hrafnsson, he’s the spokesperson for WikiLeaks.

Regarding Ecuador again, have there been any signs of movement as to how he’s going to be transferred? Have you heard anything? Have they discussed that?

No, I mean, there’s ongoing dialogue between the countries where Ecuadorian authorities are putting great effort into finding a solution. As I mentioned earlier, they have said, of course, that the UK authorities must respect the rights of the Ecuadorian authorities to grant asylum to Julian Asange, and grant him safe passage to go to Ecuador. The UK authorities are still maintaining that their commitment to a European arrest warrant and European cooperation supersedes any less consideration which is, of course, a very damaging thing to the image of human rights, because, I mean, Julian has been granted an asylum on the basis of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Let’s hope that there’ll be progress. As long as people are discussing and having a dialogue, I’m certain that at the end there’ll be a positive outcome and justice will prevail.

I hope so! Have you still had any problems with the banking blockade and your servers being attacked or have they quieted down on that?

No, at the moment we’re, of course, continuing our fight against the banking blockade by legal means and it has been a painstaking and very costly fight, but we’re continuing that, not just for WikiLeaks’ sake, but for the sake of countering the financial powers in the world who have taken upon themselves to impose a totally illegal blockade on a media organization, which is unprecedented and has to be fought! We’re now waiting, in the next coming days, for the outcome from Brussels where more than a year ago we and our partner in Iceland filed complaints against the credit card companies for infringing the laws, the anti-trust laws, on the European economic area and the European Union. And we hope that the Anti-Trust Division of the European Commission will take up formal investigation into the wrongdoing of the credit card companies and punish them severely for what they’re doing.

I see. Have you heard anything from the Australian government? Have they been in contact with you or Julian? Or are they still being quiet?

Well it’s very worrying and it’s very disappointing to Julian that the Australian authorities have not shown enough support and he has condemned the fact that the Australian authorities are not protecting him as a citizen of the country. And it has raised grave concerns among many Australians who think that the Australian authorities have abandoned him. There’s great pressure upon the government in Canberra to make amends and change the position.

Was this discussed by Julian when he was in contact with the UN? Nobody brought up that fact?

He mentioned that fact in his presentation.


How is he? The world wants to know. I know you speak with him regularly. How is Julian?

Julian is holding up pretty well, I mean, he is in good spirits and, uh, he is a dedicated person and he is not caving in and will, of course, see this to the end. He’s been under very tough circumstances for a very long time now: under house arrest before he entered the embassy, but he is a revolutionary so he’s not unaccustomed to rough conditions. He will hold out as long as necessary.

Sir, is there anything you would like to finish up with? I really appreciate you taking the time to speak to me…

Julian mentioned in his presentation, yesterday, a very important thing which is hypocrisy of the Obama administration and he was referring to Obama’s speech to the UN, a day earlier, where Obama tried to gain some credit for support to the Arab awakening, which, in our view, is nothing more than hypocrisy if you consider the fact that his own administration was supporting the dictators that were overthrown up until the last moment, ah, the: Ben Ali government until to the very end in January 2011 and Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt a little later. It’s quite surprising that he would stand before the United Nations and claim some kind of support for the Arab uprising against those dictators which the US government, his own government and previous governments had supported relentlessly, as very good allies throughout the years and I’m certain that if that US support, of those dictators, had not been in place, we would have seen these sort of uprisings, as we witnessed last year, much earlier. So, it’s nothing but hypocrisy to claim some sort of credit for supporting the Arab uprising.

In Libya they were supporting Muammar Gaddafi before they invaded the country.

The hypocrisy doesn’t end there, because if you consider, for example, the track record of the Obama administration when it comes to crackdown on whistleblowers, which is in total contrast to the promises and the platform, actually, where, ah, which Obama was campaigning on four years ago before he was elected, where he praised whistleblowers, where he encouraged whistle blowing and also as a very strong supporter of whistleblowers. But as soon as he got elected, he has this spurious track record of being the President whose administration has relentlessly fought whistleblowers and challenged them and threatened them with the Espionage Act of 1917 which is a terrible thing, which carries the death penalty. And more whistleblowers have been prosecuted, or persecuted, under the Obama administration than under any other administration in the post-WWII era and even under presidencies combined, prior to him taking office four years ago which is a very worrying trend and another example of the Obama hypocrisy.

Sure, I couldn’t believe he won the Nobel Peace Prize while he was engaged in two wars, he never closed Guantanamo, he’s taking away the civil liberties of the American people and he goes ahead… and he got the Nobel Peace Prize. What do you think about that?

Well I challenge you to talk to the children, the fatherless children of the individuals who have been killed in drone strikes, in Waziristan, ask them if they think that Obama deserved the Peace Prize.

How can a man who signs off on a daily kill list win a Nobel Peace Prize? I don’t understand myself.

That’s a very good question!

Ok, sir, thank you very much! I really appreciate it! I hope we can stay in touch and that we can speak to you soon when things develop further.

No problem!

Okay, thank you very much sir and good luck there in the US!

Bye bye

Read more:


28 September 2012, 16:21  

Assange Extradition Determined by the Executive Not Courts

Kristinn Hrafnsson Part 1

Assange extradition determined by the executive not courts – exclusive interview

Download audio file

Kristinn Hrafnsson, the official spokesperson for WikiLeaks, calls Bradley Manning a hero and one of the most important whistleblowers in history, if he was in fact the source of the documents. He also stresses the fact that the Ecuadorian authorities’ offer to move Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to the Ecuadorian Embassy in Sweden for questioning was turned down despite Assange never having tried to evade questioning to begin with.


I was wondering if you could give our listeners a little bit of insight regarding Julian Assange’s conference before the United Nations General Assembly?

Well, as you can see from his speech he was using the opportunity to point out that the relentless persecution of WikiLeaks by the Obama Administration must stop. He mentioned of course the plight of Bradley Manning. And in details went into the situation with regards to the persecution of WikiLeaks here in the United States. Of course this is a venue that was offered by the Ecuadorian authorities who were hosting this event at the United Nations in the hope that by tsking part, he could get the ears of decision makers through that venue.

So, I understand you are in the United States right now. Do you have any problems there?

No, I did not have any problem entering the country and I hope I won’t have any problem exiting the country as well. I’m here on a diplomatic invite from the permanent representatives of the Ecuadorian authorities here at the UN and taking part in the events yesterday.

Was there any progress made, there, yesterday at the UN? Do you think anything is going to really come out of this?

Well, as far as I know there was a meeting today between the Foreign Minister Patiño from Ecuador and his counterpart from the UK William Hague where they discussed the situation and where the matters are with Julian Assange. As I know there was no definite outcome. But there was certainly the understanding that the dialogue would continue. The Ecuadorian authorities are doing their best in finding a solution to this standoff and have been offering a possible solution to it. And let’s hope that with the continued dialogue this will have a positive outcome in the end.

Did the dialogue go into the area of respecting the sovereignty of embassies? The subject of the planned storming of the embassy in London, did that come up?

Of course I’m not a privy to the diplomatic dialogue between the countries, it is not a direct WikiLeaks matter. But as far as I know the threat that was made earlier by William Hague to storm the Embassy in London has been withdrawn after a very strong protest, and not just by Ecuador but by all the Latin American countries. So, I think that is out of the picture and the threat is no longer there.

What do you think personally, Julian called Bradley Manning an American patriot and a hero, what do you think about Bradley Manning?

Well, he is the alleged source of the information that we have been publishing and he is going through extremely tough times and has been held for months upon end, under conditions that are described as tantamount to torture by the Special Rapporteur on Torture of the UN, Juan Mendez, which of course is a horrible thing to do to a young man. As far as one can understand about his motives, if indeed he is the source of this information, he did that after being disillusioned about the mission in Iraq when he witnessed that innocent people were being detained and being tortured for doing basically nothing, just opposing the political allies in Iraq. So, it seems from every indication that has been published, and everybody can see on the Internet that he is indeed a patriot. And if he is indeed the source of this information – he is one of the most important whistleblowers in history and a hero in my mind.


Are you privy to any details regarding his incarceration? Is he still being woken up every 15 minutes and made to sleep without his clothes on etc? Are they still doing the same things to him they were doing?

No, not to my knowledge after a great pressure which I’m certain had an effect on changing his conditions. He was moved to another prison where his circumstances are more tolerable. This is just something that we have observed on the sideline we try our best as an organization to follow the plight of this young man. And we support him as much as we can in any way.

Regarding being sent to Sweden, can you comment on that at all, as far as there were some reports last week that Ecuador was planning to send him to Sweden? I found that very odd. Can you comment on that at all?

What I heard was that as a possible solution to this standoff the Ecuadorian authorities suggested "the possibility" that Julian would move from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to the Ecuadorian Embassy in Sweden as an attempt to finish that phase that he is wanted for, which is basically questioning. He has not been charged of anything. As far as I know that offer was turned down and that possibility but it just shows that the Ecuadorian authorities are working hard on finding a solution that could end this standoff, and this matter. And I must emphasize that Julian Assange has never tried to evade being questioned. He agreed to questioning, he has offered himself for questioning for weeks when he was staying in Sweden. And after he moved to London he offered a go to the Scotland Yard or to the Swedish Embassy to be interrogated through video link, or he offered the Swedish prosecutors to travel to London to interrogate him there. But all his offers have been turned down and it is quite spurious how the Swedish prosecution authorities are handling the matter.

That sounds extremely suspicious to me!

A lot of things that pertain to the way the Swedish authorities and the Swedish prosecutors’ office and the foreign office have been handling this matter is suspicious. One thing of course that is very suspicious is the total denial until now of the Swedish authorities to grant him some kind of certainty and guarantee that he will not be extradited further to the United States which should be a relatively easy thing to do. It would suffice to make a political declaration that of course Julian Assange would never be extradited to the United States from Sweden on the basis of his work as a publicist and journalist of, ah, in WikiLeaks.

It has been claimed by the Foreign Minister in Sweden Carl Bildt that the Executive in Sweden cannot do that because it is a matter of the Judiciary. Prominent academics and experts have pointed out that it is totally incorrect. It is the decision of the Executive whether to extradite or not. If a request comes to the Swedish authorities, it is the Executive who takes the decision whether the person is extradited or not. If a person is offered for extradition he has then the opportunity to go to the court to challenge that. But first and foremost it is the Executive who makes the decision and it is very much in the hands of the Foreign Minister of Sweden to decide upon that. And it is in his hands to give a guarantee that Julian Assange as a journalist and editor and publisher will not be extradited to the US on the basis of his work at WikiLeaks.

Of course.

 End of part 1. Part 2

Read more:


29 September 2012, 01:51  

Communicating with the Enemy US Attempts to Equate WikiLeaks as its Own Al Qaeda - Part 2

Kristinn Hrafnsson

Communicating with the enemy or WikiLeaks = Al Qaeda? - interview. PART II

Download audio file

The official spokesperson for WikiLeaks talked with the Voice of Russia about Wikileaks being placed in the same category as Al-Qaeda by the US Military who called contact with Wikileaks “communicating with the enemy” and he pointed out that a journalist can't be controlled by fear.


This is part 2 of an interview with Kristinn Hrafnsson, the official spokesperson for the WikiLeaks organization, which he gave to The Voice of Russia.

A lot of things that pertain to the way the Swedish authorities and the Swedish prosecutor's office and the foreign office have been handling this matter, is suspicious. One thing that of course is very suspicious is the total denial of the Swedish authorities to grant him some kind of certainty and guarantee that he will not be extradited further to the United States from Sweden on the basis of his work in WikiLeaks.

It has been claimed by the Foreign Minister in Sweden, Carl Bildt, that the Executive in Sweden cannot do that. Prominent academics and experts have pointed out that it is totally incorrect. It is the decision of the Executive whether to extradite or not.

Sure! There was the news report yesterday that papers were released (these were declassified documents) and that Julian was called an "enemy of the state" by the United States Government. Can you comment on that?

What we published yesterday, and produced, were documents that were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Those documents pertain to an investigation into, ah, possible wrongdoing by U.S. service personnel stationed in the UK. A woman that had shown support for the WikiLeaks cause and for Bradley Manning and was therefore investigated for the possibility of having handed information over to the WikiLeaks. In the documents it is said that the crime being investigated was defined as “communicating with the enemy”. So, in that context the enemy supposedly is WikiLeaks. It is a very worrying sign if it is true that the US military has categorically defines WikiLeaks as the enemy, it will place WikiLeaks in the same category as Al Qaeda.

Unbelievable! You have no concerns for your own safety, being there in the United States, with all that happening?

I’m a journalist and I have been a journalist for 25 years and a journalist cannot be controlled by fear.

Sure, I hear you! Regarding Ecuador again, have there been any signs of movement as to how he is going to be transferred? Or have you heard anything, have they discussed that?

No, I mean there is an ongoing dialogue between the countries where the Ecuadorian authorities are putting a great effort into finding a solution, as I’ve mentioned earlier. They have said of course that the UK authorities must accept the rights of the Ecuadorian authorities to grant diplomatic asylum to Julian Assange and grant him safe passage to go to Ecuador. The UK authorities are still maintaining that, ah, their commitment to the European arrest warrants and European cooperation supercedes any such consideration which is of course a very damaging thing to the image of human rights because, I mean, Julian has been granted an asylum on the basis of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. And let’s hope that there will be progress and as long as people are discussing and having a dialogue   I’m certain that in the end there will be a positive outcome and justice will prevail.

Listen, are you still having problems with the banking blockade and your servers being attacked? Or have they quieted down on that?

No, at the moment we are of course continuing our fight against the banking blockade, by legal means, and it has been painstaking and a very costly fight. But we are continuing that, not just for WikiLeaks’s sake but for the sake of countering the financial powers in the world who have taken upon themselves to impose this totally illegal blockade on a media organization, which is unprecedented and has to be fought. We are now waiting, in the next coming days, for the outcome from Brussels where more than a year ago we and our partner in Iceland, filed a complaint against the credit card companies for infringing the anti-trust laws of the European economic area, and the European Union. And we hope that the Anti-Trust Division of the European Commission will take up a formal investigation into the wrongdoing of the credit card companies and punish them severely for what their doing.

I see.


Have you heard anything from the Australian Government? Have they been in contact with you or Julian? Or are they still being quiet?

Well it's very worrying, and it is very disappointing to Julian, that the Australian authorities have not shown enough support and he has condemned the fact that the Australian authorities are not protecting him as a citizen of the country, and it has raised grave concerns among many Australians that think that the Australian authorities have abandoned him. And there is a great pressure upon the Government in Canberra to make ammends and change the position.

Was this discussed by Julian when he was in contact with the UN?

He’s mentioned that fact in his presentation.

How is he? The world wants to know. I know you speak with him regularly. How is Julian?

Julian is holding up pretty well and he is in good spirits, and he is a dedicated person and he is not caving in and will of course see this to the end. He’s been under very tough circumstances for a very long time now, under house arrest before he entered the Embassy. But, ah, he is revolutionary and not unaccustomed to rough conditions. So, he will hold out as long as necessary.

Okay, I see...

Julian mentioned in his presentation yesterday a very important thing which is the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration and he was referring to Obama’s speech to the UN, a day earlier, where Obama tried to gain some credit for support to the Arab Awakening, which in our view is nothing more than hypocrisy if you consider the fact that his own administration was supporting the dictators that were overthrown up until the last moment; the Ben Ali Government until the very end in January 2011 and Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt a little later.

So, it is quite surprising that he would stand before the United Nations and claim some kind of support for the Arab uprising against those dictators whom his own Government and previous governments had supported relentlessly, as very good allies throughout the years. And I’m certain that if that US support of those dictators had not been in place, we would have seen these sort of uprisings, as we witnessed last year, much earlier. So, it is nothing but hypocrisy to claim some sort of credit for supporting the Arab uprising.


Read more:



29 August 2012, 11:36

President of Australian Lawyers Alliance Speaks Out in Defense of Assange

Greg Barns

President of Australian Lawyers Alliance speaks out in defense of Assange - interview

Download audio file

Julian Assange has finally been given asylum by Ecuador and Greg Barns spoke with the Voice of Russia's John Robles regarding the case of Julian Assange and Australia's slavish relationship with the United States. He says that there is still a lot Australia can do to ensure Mr. Assange's safety behind-the-scenes.

Hello! This is John Robles. I’m speaking with Mr. Greg Barns – he is a barrister (or a lawyer) and the Director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance in Australia.

My first question is regarding your reaction to the Australian Government’s lack of protection for Julian Assange? What do you make of Australian Government’s inaction or lack of reaction?

Since he had been originally held for questioning in Sweden, the reality is that the Australian Government has been very scared to do much more for Mr. Assange because its alliance with the United States is so strong that it does not want to offend the US. And I think there is no doubt that the Australian Government understands that the US would like to extradite Mr. Assange from Sweden despite the fact that the Australian Government has been saying they know of no plans to do so.

What do you know about the secret grand jury that met in Virginia?

My understanding is that certainly a secret grand jury met. My understanding also is that the Stratfor documents show that there was a sealed indictment. Look, it would just be extraordinary to think that the Americans are not seeking to have Julian Assange prosecuted in the same way as they’ve had Bradley Manning prosecuted. The Americans have taken a very dim view of Julian Assange from day one. The Australian Government has been ensuring that it doesn’t upset the United States and that’s why, despite the fact that the Australian Government says that it’s done all it can to help Mr. Assange there are many Australians who think that it should have done a lot more by making correct representations to Washington that it does not want Julian Assange to be extradited to the United States and if he goes anywhere he goes to Australia.

What would you say to people who say that Australia has been taken over by the US as some say apparently has been the case with the UK and Sweden?

Well, I think Australia's track record when it comes to US foreign policy in recent years has played one of slavish adherence. Australia was one of the first to sign up to the war in Iraq, it’s been involved in Afghanistan. Last year the Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced putting a US base in Darwin, a northern city, which China was very hostile about. There is no doubt also that the United States is the premier ally for Australia and I think when it comes to Julian Assange, his rights come well behind those of Australia maintaining its alliance with the United States.

How do you think this is going to affect or has it affected Australian journalists and journalists worldwide as far as US censorship goes and strong arm tactics by the US?

I think what it does show is the United States’ hypocrisy on this particular issue. If the US Government decides to leak materials against other regimes such as China for example, or Russia, then that’s all ok. But if there’s material out there that the United States doesn’t want to be out there, then the United States comes down upon that journalist very very hard. And I think that the so called “land of the free” has shown that it has got a glass jaw when it comes to tactics being used against it, that it itself uses against other nations.

Why do you think the reaction was so extreme from the US?

The extreme reaction by the United States was because of the volume of material. And also what it did was that it exposed another side of the United States version of events about Iraq and Afghanistan. And the United States, like any empire, likes to control the flow of information. What Julian Assange and WikiLeaks did was to upend that control. It also showed I think that the world of international diplomacy, the inherent duplicity of that world, was exposed for all to see. One of the difficulties in this case I think for the United States is that Julian Assange doesn’t appear to have committed any offence, he certainly committed no offence in Australia. It is certainly highly questionable whether he committed any offence in the United States.

And the other difficulty I think is that whilst Australia’s Foreign Minister Bob Carr says that Sweden has a track record of not extraditing people to the United States when they are on political crimes, in recent years that hasn’t been the case as Sweden has proved very weak when it comes to extradition of people from Sweden back to the United States in what we would say is a politically charged atmosphere in relation to the war on terror.

The UK threatening to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy compound I think is an unprecedented event in recent times. Do you see this as growing US influence? Do you see that as a dangerous precedent?

I think it’s a very dangerous precedent and I think what iе shows is that the stranglehold that the United States has over its allies like the United Kingdom and Australia when it wants to get its man, in this case Julian Assange, it will effectively rip up international diplomacy and the normal rules of civility that apply in order to do so. It was going to use an act of Parliament passed in 1987 not for this purpose, but to stop terrorist activities taking place in embassies. There is no sense in which Julian Assange could be in any way considered to be a terrorist.

Looking at the terrorist issue, do you think that has been exploited, manipulated and over-used by the United States?

The problem with the war on terror is that we have seen a growing erosion of fundamental liberties and rights in Australia, United Kingdom, Canada – a range of countries that participate in the war on terror. The difficulty with the war on terror is that it is ongoing, it is never-ending, and so legislation can be justified simply under the rubric that this is all part of the war on terror. And governments which use terrorism as a tool to oppress individuals or as a tool to curtail civil liberties are generally doing so simply because they want political control. It’s got nothing to do with illegitimate acts of terrorism at all.

Do you see a hand behind orchestrating the entire so called war on terror in order to take away the civil liberties and rights of individuals, not only in the United States but worldwide?

Certainly the United States led the war on terror through the PATRIOT Act passed in the heated moments after 9\11, and other countries such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom followed. And those laws have led to the jailing of many many people who were innocent, it also led to racial-profiling, it also have been counterproductive in terms of relations with the Muslim world.

Has an Australian citizen ever been granted asylum in another country?

That’s a very good question, John. I’m not aware of one. Certainly during the Vietnam War when Australians were resisting going to Vietnam, being conscripted, some Australians certainly may have gone, for example to Canada. Pierre Trudeau was granting asylum to the Americans, I’m not sure of any Australians going over there. But certainly I’m not aware of any Australians seeking asylum in the circumstances of Julian Assange. But the Australian Government certainly could have said – we want Julian Assange to come home, we’ve got some leverage over the Americans – the Americans want us as essentially a base for their Pacific-Axis in terms of containing China, we want Julian Assange home as part of that.

How do Australians feel towards the Government? Is there a noticeable backlash going on there in Australian right now?

Look, I think the difficulty is that both the major political parties in Australia have the same position on Julian Assange: they would effectively have sat on their hands and done very little to support him. I think a lot of Australians are very upset at the way in which Julian Assange is being treated by their Government. In the same way they were about David Hicks, an Australian who was found in Afghanistan, who was then taken in Guantanamo Bay where he languished for a number of years and eventually was brought back to Australia. Ordinary Australians are outraged about what happened to Hicks as they are about Assange simply because they expect their Government to protect their citizens when they get into trouble overseas.

Sure! As it should be. Do you think this is a sign, the fact that he was granted asylum in Ecuador, do you think it is a sign of the world maybe waking up? Or is it a sign of increasing or decreasing US influence?

I think what it shows is that there are many countries that have their own minds and that Australia needs to be very careful, that its rock solid, long-standing alliance with the United States doesn’t blind it to the fact that there are other countries in the world, particularly countries in central and Latin America or in the Asian region which take a much more, if not hostile view towards the United States, a certainly a more balanced view. And Australia needs to recognize that.

Ecuador is a very small country. A large percentage of their trade and economy is dependent on the US, yet they took such a bold step as granting Julian asylum. As a lawyer you know all that legal angles to this. How do you think Julian is going to get out of the embassy? And what do you think, this is going to proceed in the future? Do you think the Australian Government may in fact come out in support of him later on?

This is where the Australian Government can get involved. Its relationship with the United Kingdom is a long and historic relationship, it says it can’t get involved in this, it can get involved behind the scenes, as it can with the United States. Julian Assange should be given safe passage either to Ecuador or directly to Australia. And that can be done and that is what is usually done when a person seeks asylum. He should not be sent to Sweden because firstly the charges that he faces in Sweden are not even charges he’s simply wanted for questioning. And we know now that this is has been highly political exercise by the prosecutors in that country. And there is also no guarantee that Sweden won’t hand him over to the Americans. Australia should get involved in persuading the United Kingdom Julian Assange should be given safe passage to the airport and as I say he either goes to Quito Ecuador or he returns home to Australia.

Thank you very much.



15 August 2012, 12:29

Assange’s Future Plans: "Right to Request Political Asylum is a Human Right"

Kristinn Hrafnsson

Assange’s future plans - right to request political asylum is a human right - interview 001

Download audio file

The official spokesperson for the WikiLeaks organization Kristinn Hrafnsson in an exclusive interview for the Voice of Russia shed light on the future plans for the organization and Julian Assange’s asylum case. He also discussed the latest DDoS-attacks that the WikiLeaks site has been suffering from.

I was wondering if you could give our listeners a little update on what is going on with Julian’s case. And in particular the DDoS-attacks you have been have been suffering from seems like the beginning of August.

What I can say about the attacks that we are having is that they are obviously from someone with a quite big capacity, those are not just some amateurs or a few teenagers doing a prank. We are taking about 10 GB’s per second which means that we are seeing someone with a capacity of ten thousand computer systems attacking the site at the same time. We are drawing a conclusion that the attacks are aimed at our fundraising capability. This comes right after we were able to open up a friends credit card gateway and start accepting donations again through credit cards.

So my take on this is such that this is an attack on our capability to collect donations. We had to use our resources and money to increase our capabilities to withhold these attacks. We are barely hanging on, but they are not going to have an upper hand, we will fight this. But I have no idea where this is coming from. I can only reiterate that this is not just a group of youngsters or pranksters. This is a serious attack obviously organized and coordinated by somebody with a huge capability.

Has anyone been able to determine by the IP-address where are these attacks coming from?

No, we have not been able to do that. We have not been able to determine the source of these attacks, so we can only speculate. Like I said, this is done on a large scale, not just by a group of teenagers.

So you are saying that may this is ten thousand computers located in different locations?

We are saying that it is the equivalent of ten thousand computers attacking our website at the same time which is quite massive.

Are they attacking all the mirror sites as well?

They have been attacking mirror sites and the donation page which is not hosted on our site but we link to that site. So this is obviously a coordinated massive attack.

So they are not just targeting your WikiLeaks page and information, they are targeting your donations page which is on a separate server?


Can you tell anything to our listeners about Julian’s asylum case? Ecuador has promised to come to a decision after the Olympics.

We had no confirmation that they have reached the decision; at least they have not informed Julian about their decision. I just spoke to him a moment ago and some media are reporting and citing our name sources that the Ecuadorian authorities have decided to give him asylum but in fact he has not been notified. I cannot confirm such reports. I would be very glad if that was the case, but until we get an official confirmation I can’t really comment on that.

For me this is a million-dollar question: if he is granted an asylum how is he going to get out of the Ecuadorian Embassy?

That is obviously something that has to be negotiated with the UK authorities. They have to grant them a window to leave the country. And of course it would be highly spurious if they decide not to on the basis of the fact that the Ecuadorian authorities have come through a lot of trouble in tallying information. And if it is collected and this is their position, which we cannot confirm, then it is based on a detailed evaluation and information gathering in both states – Sweden and UK. And they have been working on it for weeks.

There were official reports from the UK government that were Julian to leave the embassy, regardless if he has asylum or not, that they would stop the vehicle and pull him out of it to arrest him. Have the British authorities retracted that statement or is this still their position?

I have not seen that statement recently. This was from the timeframe where they have been simply saying that he had reached this bail condition which is legally not correct, according to our lawyers. He is using his right to request political asylum which is a human right.

What are your planes and what are WikiLeaks’s plan if Julian is granted asylum? How will that effect the organization? And if he is not, how will that effect the organization?

It is hard to speculate what kind position we will take if he is not granted the political asylum. But if he is then the next step would be to secure his safe pass to Ecuador and continue or work as we have been doing. We have been operating under very strange and very difficult circumstances. Julian has been under house arrest all this time. But we are an online-based organization where the location of individuals working for the organization and working on projects doesn’t matter all that much. So this is what we have planned for the future – just continue the work we have been doing.

Have you been threatened yourself by the US of Western authorities?

No I have not been threatened by the US or any other authority and I would not take that very lightly being a journalist for more than 20 years.


16 July 2012, 17:32

Wikileaks and Datacell: An Inconvenient Truth?

Andreas Fink

Wikileaks and Datacell: an inconvenient truth? - interview

Andreas Fink, the CEO of Datacell has recently won a judgment against Visa which had attempted to block the flow of financing to Wikileaks. He echoed what some say about Wikileaks publishing the truth and he claims they should be supported. Unfortunately, sometimes the truth is an inconvenient thing.

Hello, this is John Robles. I’m speaking with Mr. Andreas Fink, he’s the CEO of Datacell in Iceland.

Can you give our listeners a little bit of an update on what’s going on with WikiLeaks? Recently they’ve won a court case against Valitor. Can you tell us about that?

Yes. Valitor is one of the payment processors we have used to process donations to WikiLeaks and for our own services. And when they opened up the payment gateway in 2011, they closed it again within 24 hours, saying everything was illegal, and it was a breach of contract. We sued them and the court has ruled now in our favor saying that Valitor has to re-open the gateway within 14 days and pay fines for every day they haven’t opened it after those 14 days.

Are you confident that they’re going to follow the court’s ruling?

We’ll have to see. I mean they still have the possibility to object the ruling and push it further to the next court. I heard some rumors through the press that they intend to do this. If they have much success in the Supreme Court is questionable, because there is not many arguments they can bring and the court has ruled pretty heavily in our favor.

I think this is a pretty big victory for WikiLeaks, isn’t it?

Yeah, it’s just the first step. I mean, there’re additional steps to follow. Of course there’s the damage which has to be figured out and there’s a second claim in Denmark against the other payment processor. And then there’s a court case in EU Commission about a similar thing.

Will the ruling in Iceland affect those other cases, do you think?

Well, they’ve had a precedent for those other cases. We have now a court who has clearly ruled that one of the factors is invalid. First, the payment to third parties which was one of the arguments they put forward to close down the gateway. They said: “Well, the donations go to WikiLeaks, but the payment was going to Datacell on behalf of WikiLeaks”. So, they said: “This is a payment to a third party”. And this argument has now been objected. The second thing was that the court hasn’t found anything illegal with WikiLeaks, for no fact has been presented that WikiLeaks should be illegal in anyway which is of course a good confirmation for WikiLeaks.

That’s great. Listen, have you had any pressure from the US possibly due to your cooperation with WikiLeaks - that you can talk about?

We have not had any direct contact with the US government or any related party there. The only thing we had is that Visa, of course, pressed the credit card companies to close us down and this had an effect on our whole business, not only the donations to WikiLeaks. That has been quite severe damage to us.

Do you know of any other companies or any other precedent such as yours? Do you think Visa was pushed by the US government to take such measures?

We don’t have any evidence of that but it’s very obvious that Visa wouldn’t do that on their own. It’s also big business for them. So if they go and take our company to be disconnected just because we’re donating to Visa and make sure that we don’t have access to the payment system again, then it’s pretty obvious that there must be some forces behind that. Actually now we have some proof, another case where we’re seeing that the US government is behind it.

And what was that about? Can you speak about that?

Well, we once, in 2010 tried to open credit cards processing through the Diner’s Club Card in addition to MasterCard. And the answer from them was that they couldn’t process it because they were ordered by the US government not to.

Really? This was told to you by Diners Club?

Yes, it was the company which actually processed the Diner’s Club transactions, which is called discover in the U.S. I think.

I see. Can you give our listeners a little bit of an idea about how much you’ve lost due to these actions and how much has WikiLeaks lost?

We have lost around €130,000 per day in transactions. That was the amount we were processing in December. And since then we were totally closed down.

So, since December of 2011 you’ve been losing €130,000 a day?

December 2011.

I’m sorry. December 2010!

If you multiply this you end up with something like 75 million euros in total.

You think they will try to get out of it? Is there anything you can do if they decide not to follow the ruling?

First thing they can do, they can appeal. If they lose the appeal then the court ruling is set and the court has ruled that they have to pay fines for every day they don’t open the gateway. And of course with that ruling being in effect we can also go and claim damages for the past.

In the past have you spoken with Julian Assange during the whole process at all? Have you had contact with him?

We’ve had contact with him in 2010 and 2011 about all these processes because WikiLeaks is a very important customer of ours, of course. We haven’t talked to him personally lately. I think he’s not easy to reach these days.

Anything else you want to discuss, or let our listeners know, about what’s going on there?

Well, what’s happening now is that we have this case with Valitor. We have the same case with Teller in Denmark which is now going on. And the European Commission has a case on their table to rule in general that Visa MasterCard has abused their market and we are quite eager to get the results of that as soon as they open the investigation that has been filed over a year ago by now.

Do you have any forecast on that? When will that go to court?

They once said that it’s going to be before the summer, which is like now. I guess we’re going to hear from them pretty soon.

Overall, are you positive about the outcome?

We have now one court who confirms that we haven’t done anything wrong which just confirms that what we were doing and that our arguments were perfectly OK. So we believe we cannot be on the wrong track.

Do you believe in what WikiLeaks was doing? Do you believe that’s freedom of press and freedom of speech?

Absolutely. Otherwise we wouldn’t have done business with them in the first place.


3 July 2012, 11:03  2 July 2012, 16:28

Assange and Truth: A Plea from Christine Assange

Christine Assange

Assange and truth: A plea from Christine Assange

Why isn’t the U.S. Government going after those guilty of the crimes exposed by Wikileaks? Why are they going after the whistle-blowers and not the criminals that they have exposed? The letter below by Julian’s mother Christine Assange may shed more light on the case.

There have been many bad things written about Julian Assange and Wikileaks and these have grown even more frequent with his request for political asylum in Ecuador. Like many fighters for the truth on the internet, at the beginning I myself was skeptical, for years I had run a similar site, what you might classify as a “whistle-blower website”, along with hundreds if not thousands of others that sprung up after 9-11, and was in contact with dozens of other like-minded individuals.

The problem we had with Wikileaks was the amount of money he was attempting to raise. This cast a shadow on the independence of the resource. For example my site has never, in nine years of operation made me a cent, quite the opposite in fact, and has caused me countless problems and cost me a ton of money, but I have never received a dime from anyone therefore no one has influence on its contents other than myself and I can truthfully call it independent and free.

Looking back at the sheer size and the impact that Wikileaks has had on the world, and in light of the fact that its co-founder, yes there was another individual who founded Wikileaks along with Assange, has been forced to seek political asylum and has been persecuted for so long, this whole argument begs a re-thinking if not a redaction.

Although at the beginning Wikileaks was not transparent in declaring its expenses and in stating where the hundreds of thousands of dollars it had been seeking was going, this has become a mute point in light of the current state of affairs. However I would advise Wikileaks to be more transparent and open when it attempts to raise funds in the future.

During the past few weeks I have talked to many people closely associated with Julian and Wikileaks, and the more I learn, the more I understand that these are people who are sincere in their attempts to get the truth out and to have those criminals who have been turned the world into their own kill-and-destroy-for-a-buck-playing-field, for over a decade, held accountable for their crimes against each and every one of us, their blatant and clear crimes against humanity.

The pressing and urgent question that the world should be asking and which seems to be getting lost in all of the attention be poured on Julian and Wikileaks, is quite simple yet a question that few dare to ask. Why? Are they afraid? That question is: Why isn’t the U.S. Government going after those guilty of the crimes exposed by Wikileaks? Why are they going after the whistle-blowers and not the criminals that they have exposed?

The letter below by Julian’s mother Christine Assange may shed more light on the case:

Open letter to the Australian people from Christine Assange – mother of Julian Assange

There have been many public statements made about WikiLeaks and its Editor-in-chief Julian Assange that are factually inaccurate.

For example, Prime Minister Julia Gillard: "It's illegal." Attorney General Nicola Roxon: "He fled Sweden" and the media generally: "Assange is charged/facing charges" (in relation to Swedish sex allegations).

Some of these inaccurate statements are due to misinformation, but others are designed to smear Julian, to erode his public support, to discredit WikiLeaks work and to prevent the further publishing of uncomfortable truths.

Many Australians including leading lawyers, academics and journalists believe WikiLeaks is a legitimate, ethical and courageous media organisation, and that Julian is an innocent man; a political prisoner persecuted for exposing the US Government and its big corporations for the complicity in war crimes, fraud and corruption, exploitation of the third world, bullying and diplomatic manipulation in other countries, lying to the public and other shady dealings.

They were appalled as the Australian Government stood by in silence as furious US politicians and commentators called for the brutal murder of my son. The Australian Government stood silent when Julian's personal bank accounts were frozen and the US Government cut off 95 per cent of WikiLeaks funding by pressuring credit card companies to refuse to process voluntary donations (this was despite the fact that the US Treasury stated there was no reason to blacklist WikiLeaks).

They are deeply concerned that the Government refuses to protest against the many documented abuses of Julian's legal and human rights in the Swedish extradition case or his right to a fair legal process in an imminent US extradition application.

Moreover, many feel his treatment signifies other wider concerns that the Australian Government has become an echo chamber of the US Government and US big business, which is increasingly dictating Australian policy and new legislation against the interests of Australian security, the privacy and civil rights of Australian citizens, Australian businesses and Australian democracy.

I implore you as a mother and urge you as an Australian citizen to look at the facts I have listed below and to make up your own mind.

Included at the end are links to more factual information, what we are asking the Australian Government to do to protect Julian and some actions you may take to support Julian's right to justice.

Thanking you,

Christine Assange

At the end of her letter she lists some facts in the case. Too many to list all of them here but here are the main points and they deserve proper consideration by all.


PLEASE NOTE: Julian has not been charged by Sweden regarding the sex allegations, or by any other country in the world in relation to his work at

1) Sam Adams Award 2010: Julian Assange was unanimously awarded to Julian Assange for "Integrity and Intelligence" for the release of the Afghan War Diaries and Iraq war logs by a panel of senior US military and intelligence officers (ret.).

2) 2011 Walkley Award for Excellence in Journalism ; "Today journalists and editors around the world are concerned about the attacks on WikiLeaks. This is an issue of the freedom of the press, people have a right to information through the opportunities provided by the web, and journalists remain ready to fight for the principle of exposure journalism".

3) WikiLeaks acts in accordance with traditional journalism.

4) WikiLeaks redacts its documents; so to date not one person has been physically harmed by its publications.

5) WikiLeaks has a perfect record with information reliability. No Government has denied authenticity of any documents.

6) After the Afghan War Diary release 25/7/10 Julian visited Sweden to obtain residency and base WikiLeaks there. The US was aware of more WikiLeaks releases to come and wrote threatening letters. Julian was warned of entrapment plans.

7) Woman A.A. invited Julian to speak in Sweden at a seminar about Afghanistan in mid-August 2010. Woman S.W. stated she went to the seminar to meet Julian. Both women have stated to the police and media that sex was consensual and non-violent. Exculpatory evidence (texts to friends) show women had no complaints regarding sex until finding out about each other and 100+ texts between A.A. and S.W. speak of revenge, making money and ruining Julian's reputation by going to the press.

8) Woman S.W. was so upset police were going to allege rape she does not finish her interview or sign her witness statement, which was then altered again without her consent. She stated she felt railroaded into making a complaint.

9) In Sweden, consensual non-violent sex can be legally defined as rape.

10) Contrary to Swedish police procedure the women's interviews were not video or audio taped and the first prosecutor, Maria Haljebo-Kjellstrand, unlawfully told the press Julian was wanted for rape. Julian was not interviewed or informed he found out in the tabloid newspaper Expressen that he was, "Being hunted down for double rape". Within hours, there were millions of website hits for Assange plus rape, causing irreparable harm to Julian's reputation.

11) The next day after reviewing the file, Stockholm's chief prosecutor Eva Finne threw out the rape allegation. "I consider there are no grounds for suspecting he has committed rape," she said.

12) For the last three years, the political advisor to the Swedish Prime Minister has been Karl Rove, a notorious, disgraced former Bush administration advisor who orchestrated vicious smear campaigns against political opponents. Karl Rove is a personal friend of the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrick Reinfeldt and of the Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt.

13) Sweden has close ties to the US and was the major arms supplier to the US-Iraq War.

14) Around a week after the dropping of the rape allegation by the chief prosecutor, a politician/lawyer named Claes Borgstrom appealed the decision. Claes Borgstrom and his business partner Thomas Bodstrom run a thriving legal practice based on representing claimants in sex cases.

15) Woman A.A., Irmeli Krans (interrogating police officer of woman S.W.) and both Borgstrom and Bodtsrom are members of the Swedish Social Democrat Party. They all stood together for elections at the same time, one month after the sex allegations were made against Julian, with one of the platforms being widening the definition of rape within consensual sex.

16) Woman A.A. produced new evidence for the appeal. She submitted a condom which she states Julian tore deliberately. Forensic tests showed there was no DNA evidence in the condom from either Julian or herself.

17) Julian was not informed of the appeal and had no chance to make a submission the appeal was successful.

18) Julian remained in Sweden for five weeks seeking an interview with the new prosecutor Marianne Ny. She made excuses not to interview him and gave him permission to leave Sweden for business on September 15th (meeting with Cablegate media partners). He offered to fly back into Sweden for interview on October 9 or 10. Ny refused because it was a weekend. He offered to fly back on October 11th Ny refused because it was too far away.

19) During October and November Julian stayed at the journalist's club in the UK preparing for the release of the US diplomatic cables (Cablegate). During this period, he offered to be interviewed by Marianne Ny via the normal protocol for this situation called Mutual Legal Assistance, (MLA), (via Skype, phone or videolink), Marianne Ny refused all offers.

20) Around the time of the release of Cablegate in late November, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for questioning stating that Julian had fled the country and a public Interpol Red Notice for his arrest.

21) For the entire 16 months that Julian has been under house arrest in the UK, Marianne Ny has refused all his offers to be interviewed at the Swedish Embassy or in Scotland Yard.

22) Marianne Ny has misled the Swedish and UK public by stating that she was legally not allowed to interview Julian by mutual legal assistance or in the UK.

23) Many legal people investigating the case are of the opinion that the Swedish extradition case is not bona fide but merely a holding case awaiting a US extradition.

24) The European arrest warrant is only supposed to be issued for prosecution not for questioning. Under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant, no allegations can be tested (including the sex allegations against Julian).

25) The European Arrest Warrant was initially meant for the fast-track extradition of bona-fide terrorists but has been misused. It has been subject to much criticism since its inception as it results in the abuse of many citizens legal and human rights (1000 people a month extradited from the UK).

Thank you to Christine Assange for allowing us to publish her letter.

The views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the author or the Voice of Russia.
Read more:


2 July 2012, 16:28

Letter to Ecuadorian President in support of Assange 

Mary Kostakidis

Mary Kostakidis is a 20 year international TV news anchor, a freelance journalist, has conducted a study on the protection of human rights for the Australian government and has written a letter in support of Julian Assange to the Ecuadorian president.

Hello, this is John Robles. I am speaking with Mary Kostakidis, she was a former anchor for SBS World News in Australia. She conducted an inquiry into the protection of human rights and the promotion of human rights in Australia for the Australian government. She is also a freelance journalist.


Robles: I understand you wrote a letter to the Ecuadorian Government about the Julian Assange case.

Kostakidis: Yes, well, I wrote a letter urging them to give Julian Assange asylum because the Australian government is abrogating its responsibility and refusing to guarantee the safety of one of its own citizens. Unfortunately, what we’ve seen is double standards being applied when it comes to the government assisting Australian citizens overseas in need of help. The Australian prime minister picked up the phone and talked to her counterpart in Indonesia to intervene in the case of a youth in trouble there, and our foreign minister has just been to Libya to try and secure the release of an Australian citizen, a woman in trouble there. When it comes to Julian Assange, when it comes to people the government doesn’t like, or disapproves of what they have been doing, then they feel no compulsion to assist them in any way.

Robles: I see. What is the current status of the request?

Kostakidis: Well, the Ecuadorians have been extremely supportive and humane. They are examining the situation and at least Julian is safe within the confines of the Embassy. It is my understanding no decision has been made but the Ecuadorian government would be under enormous pressure because as we know they receive exemptions from the United States to import goods to the value of about a third of their economy, around 10 billion dollars and supporting some 400,000 jobs in a country of around 14 million people. Now those preferences, when they come up for renewal by congress early next year, are in question. So, there is a lot on president Correa’s plate at the moment, but these people who support free speech and are opposed to the tight control of the internet that governments are trying to rest. We’ll be looking to Ecuador’s decision, so really this country is under the international spotlight.


Robles: Can you tell us anything about the current status of the request?

Kostakidis: They are still negotiating all of this and as you can imagine, there are steps that need to be taken in the diplomatic process to try to work out exactly what they can do and what they are prepared to do.

Robles: I see. Have you talked to Julian recently since he asked for asylum?

Kostakidis: No, I haven’t spoken to him since he has been in the embassy. But of course I have e-mail contacts with the people who are close to him there.

Robles: How is he?

Kostakidis: Well, as his mother Christine told me yesterday he feels safe and is surrounded by people that aren’t threatening him in any way and providing for his basic needs, so he is in a better position that he would be if he were not in this embassy. I was told that the people he's surrounded by are warm and human and natural, you know, responding to him in a natural way.

Robles: Yeah, I talked to Christine too, she told me the same thing. Are you aware of any statements by the Australian government or the UK government as to whether they will try to intercept Julian if he is physically moved out of the embassy and tries to go to Ecuador? Have you heard anything about that?

Kostakidis: Not by the Australian government but certainly the UK government or UK authorities have made it clear that they will arrest him at the moment he emerges from the Embassy even if he is in a diplomatic vehicle. The Australian government has made some curious statements about Assange and Wikileaks, that said that their activities are illegal and the latest thing that the foreign minister has said is that he is amoral and really it’s a statement that many Australian citizens would not agree with. Revealing the truth is never amoral.

Robles: Illegal in what regard, in what country? Where was something illegal done?

Kostakidis: You'd need to ask the prime minister that. Close on the heels of making that statement the Australian police and other authorities had to in fact contradict her and say that he had broken the law in no country. But as we know there is a grand jury examining this issue and gathering evidence, and this is, of course, this is Assange’s greatest fear that he will end up being extradited to the US. And his lawyers have received a letter from Australian attorney general saying should there be moves to extradite him from Sweden to the US or indeed from the UK to the US, that the Australian government would certainly not intervene in that process, and this is one of the key demands by Assange, his lawyers and the people who support him; that the Australian government intervene. They haven’t intervened in any way even to the extent of not retracting the prejudicial statements that his activities are illegal, they haven’t demanded that Sweden question him in London, they haven’t demanded that Sweden and the US not extradite him once to the United States. They haven’t demanded that the US stop this investigation into the work of a publisher and a journalist. You have to remember that Assange ironically in Australia has received one of the highest awards for his journalism for outstanding contribution to journalism.

Robles: Ok, thank you very much, Mary, for agreeing to speak with me.

That was an interview with Mary Kostakidis, she was a former anchor for SBS World News in Australia. She conducted an inquiry to the protection of human rights and the promotion of human Rights for the Australian government.
Read more:


20 June 2012, 13:33

Original Suspicions About Assange/WikiLeaks

By John Robles

Assange: A snake oil salesman?

Is Assange and Wikileaks a huge disinformation operation by U.S. intelligence?

Hello dear reader, hope you are well. Once again the (in)famous Julian Assange is making headlines and grabbing the attention of the world’s media. Not that I have a problem with this, the only thing is that the circus atmosphere and the constant media attention seems to be taking the focus away from what should be the real story with Julian. But that is the way it seems to be with him, things just don’t add up when it comes to Julian and for me that has been a fact since day one.

If you are a fan of Julian and Wikileaks and believe everything they claim about exposing secrets to bring about accountability and that government secrecy must be stopped etc. read no further.

From its inception the whole thing seemed quite strange, bizarre really. First the name “Wikileaks”, it seemed like an obvious attempt to profit off of and by proxy grant credibility by association by using a name so similar to that other famous and globally trusted “Wiki”, a source of information almost all of us uses from time to time.

For from its outset that is exactly what “Wikileaks” lacked for me, credibility. But as I am one who attempts to always be fair and keep an open mind I tried to believe. Unfortunately the attempt did not work. For starters it seems too glib, too slick, too snake oily. Here was a site asking, openly, without a wink of the eye or an obfuscation of the language for anyone, anywhere to send it the secrets of their governments and just to be even more interesting, of their corporations. And of course, anonymity was guaranteed.

There were already sites out there that were dedicated in one way or another to exposing government malfeasance, war crimes, corruption and so on and so forth, run by people living on the fringes and in fear, getting shut down, blocked, being harassed and some site owners disappearing, having strange accidents, heart failure, being suicided, being stripped of their citizenship or outright killed. Sites like this still exist but their number has dropped considerably. Yes, there were many, all trying quietly to fight for the truth and for the most part existing on meager budgets and with no funding.

During the dark ages of the Bush era and after 9-11 there were thousands which sprang up, all being dealt with one after the other. Just ask any 9-11 Truther about the tactics used by the US Government to shut down, get rid of, and in the end shut up anyone who tried to expose the lies surrounding 9-11 and the subsequent wars of aggression, Guantanamo, and torture incorporated. Behind every one of those sites there was a person, afraid but ready to fight for the truth. And then out of nowhere, BAM!!! Here comes Wikileaks, spouting off and trying to present itself as the be all, end all wholesale clearing house of secret internet information, a MegaMart of truth and secret documents. That’s right, anyone anywhere send us your proof of crimes by your government, anonymity guaranteed, they claimed.

To me and many who had contact with Assange back in the Cypherpunk days, it seemed odd. Who Assange, a hacker with an interest in cryptography, or worse, the front man for a government front seeking to put an end to as many whistleblowers as possible, once and for all? Ask Manning. Even more probable he is simply a snake oil salesman looking to make a quick buck.

This latter version is backed up by documents on the internet, in particular on the site, run by an often harassed and shut down John Young, which has a collection of documents from Wikileaks insiders and Assange himself. In one of the documents an anonymous source going by the code name “Wikileaks Insider” details how Assange bragged about how Wikileaks had ”…no headquarters, no office, no formal structure other than the name and the truth-seeking ideology attached to it.” Yet at the time Assange was seeking $600,000.00, yes dear reader, over half a million, for the overall budget of Wikileaks and $200,000.00 just to, as Insider put it, “keep the lights on”.

In a pledge drive mailing, dated January 7, 2007, the Wikileaks Advisory Board stated, and I quote: “We can succeed at a slower / scale limited way with under $50,000 / year & volunteers, but it is our goal to raise pledges of $5m by July.” That is a lot of money, $5 million in 6 months!

According to “Wikileaks Insider” Assange was prepared to throw Manning to the dogs to cover his own posterior as he and Manning had been planning to sell the Iraq and Afghanistan information to news and media corporations.

Another problem with Wikileaks was their guarantee of anonymity, anyone who knows a little about the internet knows that when you sit down in front of your computer, and even worse go online, there is no guarantee that you are not being watched or monitored. Again according to “Insider”: “Wikileaks is a very serious accident just waiting to happen,they convince the whistle blower that their anonymity is protected, and their data is secured. Nothing could be further from the truth.” Again ask Manning.

If we look at the information released by Wikileaks from an intelligence standpoint and do a damage control assessment using the material that is already out there, then what we see is a lot of smoke and almost no fire.

Even with all of the noise and media attention that the Iraq and Afghanistan files have raised, from an intelligence viewpoint, they exposed no real “secrets” which caused damage to the United States. Sure so and so thought the Ambassador of country “A” was a lout, but is that a state secret? The most damage was done to informants and Afghanis but I suppose they were all expendable to the U.S. and maybe even liabilities to begin with.

All of this talk about damage is irrelevant anyway, when it comes to Wikileaks, because Assange, being the “upstanding citizen” he is, apparently cleared everything with Pentagon vetters before he released anything, which made anything he released useless.

Despite this the media and world intelligence services were ties up for months sifting through everything trying to gain some piece of useful intelligence or secret. All of this pointing, once again, to some tie between Assange and the U.S. and begs the question, “Is Assange and Wikileaks a huge disinformation operation by U.S. intelligence?”

Other facts and inconsistencies in the whole affair also point to a “special” relationship between Assange and the U.S. If we compare the Victor Bout case and Assange’s many more questions arise. First and foremost for me is; if Assange is really wanted by the U.S. and really caused so much damage, why has it been so difficult for them to get him?

Victor Bout was in a third country and was wanted on circumstantial and very weak evidence and his extradition was opposed by the largest country in the world, yet they still illegally, for want of a better word “kidnapped” him and took him to the U.S. Assange is on the territory of the U.S.’ staunchest ally, walking around giving press conferences and we are supposed to believe the U.S. could not get him. The last country anyone with such issues with the U.S. would want to be is in the U.K., but here is Assange, giving press conferences when he should have been in hiding running for his life as he was apparently being hunted by U.S. intelligence services.

Therefore we can conclude that he is connected with U.S. intelligence, why not? Who else would profit from gaining the secrets of the world’s governments. Too bad we can not ask Manning.

On the other hand, if he is not a U.S. agent, asset, or in some other way operating for them, then he is a snake oil salesman who failed miserably in an attempt to sell information to the world’s media. Nobody bought it.

In the middle of all this we are also believe that Assange was set up by someone on rape charges to extradite him to the U.S. from Sweden. Why are we supposed to believe that it would be easier to get him in Sweden? If they had wanted him the best place to get him was the U.K., I am sorry, I don’t buy it.

Now Assange has asked for asylum, but from what country? China? The Russian Federation? Cuba? North Korea? No, these countries with political stances and positions often opposed by the U.S. were not on Assange’s list. Why? Perhaps because they know it is all a crock. So he went to the Ecuadorian Embassy and asked for asylum. Perhaps the intelligence services of Ecuador will believe it all.

Again, the whole thing just does not add up, too bad we can’t ask Manning.

Have a good one.

The views and opinions expressed here are the writer’s own.
Read more:


22 June 2012, 20:43

Australia Gave Up on Assange

Senator Scott Ludlam

Sen. Scott Ludlam: Australia gave up on Assange, Exclusive Interview

ownload audio file

Why is "official" Australian reaction on Julian Assange’s impending extradition indifferent?

Hello. This is John Robles. I am speaking with Senator Scott Ludlam with the Australian Green Party.

On May 30th you raised the issue before the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs on Julian Assange’s impending extradition. What was the reaction?

The reaction is really indifference. The Australian government doesn’t completely understand why the people are so concerned and as recently as yesterday we had a Foreign Minister on Twitter throwing his hands up in the air metaphorically saying what more should we have done? And I am struggling to understand what it is that they are not understanding or that they don’t get. We are looking for the Australian government to stand up for Mr. Assange’s human rights and they have been extremely negligent in that duty.

What is now the official position of the Australian government?

The Australian government has essentially said that they offered Mr. Assange a full consular assistance, which is true in a very legalistic way of thinking about it. They’ve sent him text messages, they sent officers to appear at court hearings in the United Kingdom and I think they attended when he was incarcerated in the end of 2010. But at the same time as that is occurring the Australian government has also preemptively declared the work to Wikileaks illegal, that was their prime minister, the Attorney-General instructed the Federal police to investigate whether Assange’s passport could be torn up, there have been false crimes and statements made that he has been charged by the Swedish government, which is obviously not true, and also that he fled Sweden, which is not true. So the assistance has been fairly seen on the ground but there has also been some really quite aggressive political positioning around the work of Wikileaks organization. Now we believe whether you agree with this publishing outfit style and its role in the way that it conducts its work, would you agree with that or not. Julian still has Australian citizenship entitlement, he still has the right to a fair trial, I think he has right to know whether his government will protect him if for example he is prosecuted by the United States.

I find this very bizarre. How is it that he may face the death penalty if he is an Australian citizen?

That’s peculiar. I don’t know how that would work, what is likely is that he would be potentially charged of espionage, that’s what we believe based on the work of the grand jury that was empanelled at the end of 2010. And so there may be espionage charges or charges related to computer hacking, illegal entry to computer systems, but nobody knows, this really is guess work because it hasn’t been revealed whether there was an indictment that was produced by the grand jury, whether it’s underway. And those sort of things I would have thought the Australian government would be very interested in finding out.

Would do you know about the sealed grand jury finding?

We know probably no more than the general public. We know from media reports that the grand jury existed, that was impaneled in the end of 2010, but it was issuing subpoenas tens of thousands pages of documentation that have been assembled and that then it wasn’t mentioned that sealed indictment existed and the Stratfor that leaked via Wikileaks in February. So, there is no proof that there is a sealed indictment, there is certainly evidence leading in that direction. My ask really on the Australian government is that they should simply take an interest, stop pretending they stay out of this debate and talking about consular system, they need political and diplomatic support. That’s what Julian is asking for, that’s what we are asking for. Just to give you one example, a foreign minister was who is an Australian citizen who was there developing prosecutions in the international criminal court. She had diplomatic protection, she should not have been incarcerated and I strongly support a foreign minister travelling there to advocate in her cause. Now that’s not consular assistance, that somebody actually offering her substantive help and that’s what I think – we are not asking for the foreign minister to fly anywhere to confront anybody. We would like to know whether the U.S. government intends to prosecute Julian Assange and if they do whether the Australian government will tolerate that or whether they will resist it.

What documents did you request? Have you received them?

We’ve requested documents in the position of the Australian government, we are relating to the interactions with the counterpart in the department of state and the department of justice. I don’t have any standing to directly demand documents from the US but I am able to inquire to what communications have occurred between counterparts here and in Washington and in that regard the department of foreign affairs has delayed, obfuscated, made excuses and made it difficult as possible to the point where they are not actually in breech of their own guideline, we are appealing that they’ve handled the case. It appears as though they are doing everything they possibly can to prevent everything that might expose what they are actually being doing, which I suspect either announce to ignorance or to complicity, either they know that the prosecutions are about to be launched. They haven’t done anything about it, or they don’t know they are being kept in the dark and I am not sure which is worse.

Now he has sought asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Do you think the US will try to intercept him if he leaves the Embassy?

I don’t believe that the US has ever indicated that they would do such a thing but Scotland Yard have indicated that Julian’s now breached his bail conditions and if sets foot outside the diplomatic protection by the Ecuadorian Embassy, that he will be arrested. So, as long as he stays on that property, but I can’s imagine circumstance in which he would be able to make it through, he is thown onto a claim unless there is negotiated settlement with the British government. So, at the moment quite literally it’s a stand off and I don’t think anybody knows exactly how it is going to be resolved.

So, it looks like he will be there for a long time?

It’s very difficult to say. In part this is up to the president and the government of Ecuador as to whether they choose to offer him asylum. If they deny him asylum, then I understand that he would then be handed back to British authorities who presumably would put him in prison and immediately transfer him to Stockar. If he is prosecuted and found guilty he could potentially serve out some of his term here in Australia, there is an agreement that it would repatriate a prisoner and Australian government indicated that it is aware of that option.

Are there any other developments that you would like the world to know about?

The Australian people by quite a strong majority support the work of the Wikileaks organization. They support the kind of journalism and the kind of publishing that Wikileaks did, mainstream journalists and publishing houses were putting stories originating from Wikileaks, we saw them on the front page of the major papers day after day. These were war crimes that were exposed, these were substantial issues of public policy around the way the United States behaves in the United Nations, the fact that the Australian government had offered military troops to special operations in Pakistan, missile strikes in Yemen that public weren’t aware of. I think the citizens of every country in the world learned some important things from the work of Wikileaks. That’s not good enough now that we stand back and allow the organization to be sabotaged and its proponent to be locked up.

Do you see a public outcry in Australia causing the government to change their position?

Yes, I think that’s actually starting to happen now. We saw yesterday for the first time - I was able to get opposition party support, conservative party support for a motion in the Senate in support of Wikileaks organization and Julian Assange right and that’s the first time that’s occurred. I think the political pressure is mounting, I think the Australian government is starting to become increasingly isolated and I think there is still time for them to do the right thing and I hope they do.

Thank you very much.

You were listening to Australian Senator Scott Ludlam with the Australian Green Party.


"Assange ...lost faith in justice system."

Jacob Appelbaum  Interview with Jacob Appelbaum: Assange: "...lost faith in justice system."

Download audio file

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Jacob Appelbaum . He is a developer with the Tor Project and a close associate of Julian Assange. Hello Sir! How are you today? I’m fantastic except for the obvious situation with the dear friend of mine.

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Jacob Appelbaum. He is a developer with the Tor Project and a close associate of Julian Assange.

Hello Sir! How are you today?

I’m fantastic except for the obvious situation with the dear friend of mine.

Can you tell us a little bit about what is going on with Julian? Why did he decide to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy? And what are the prospects of him getting out there?

Sure! I think part of the reason that he is there right nowis that he’s lost faith in the system of justice that he’s been thrown into. So, he is currently there right now because he thinks that Sweden is acting in bad faith. And there is every reason to think that there is something apart from the grand jury in the United States which is harassing Americans and others to what’s happening in Sweden and of course the way that the Swedish Government seems to be treating Julian with regard to as an example being willing to interview him or not interview him remotely from the United Kingdom.

Can you clear up a little bit, some of our listeners and a lot of people I know were curious why it would be easier for the US to get him in Sweden than in Great Britain? I mean Great Britain is classically the staunchest ally of the US.

Well, I think it is not a question of easier, I think it is a question of what is more possible. In the UK, it is quite clear that he was able to be essentially free to roam around with a certain restriction. This restriction of movement is clearly better than being in prison but not significantly better in a lot of ways. So, the UK in a sense already had him in their clutches and what’s happening with Sweden is that if he is transferred to Sweden, he will be in a jail, incommunicable in that prison and it will not be possible for him to see the light of day unless he is either released by the Swedish or unless he is transferred to another country and that country chooses to free him.

With regard to the UK being easier to extradite from, it is possible, that’s true, but as we’ve seen with the case of Garry McKinnon, the alleged attacker who supposedly broke into this mass suicide, I don’t fully understand the setup of this trial but my understanding that it’s been ten years and he is still hasn’t been extradited.

Of course the UK and Australia have quite a special relationship given the existence of the dominion and the common world countries and their relationships, whereas Sweden in 2001 actually cooperated with the US, and specifically with the CIA with regards to an extraordinary rendition to a country in the Middle East where the people, that were the subjects of that rendition, were tortured. And the United Nations and human rights were both strongly criticizing Sweden for this. Additionally Sweden, as far as I understand, has not denied any of extradition requests the US has made.

Have you talked to Julian lately? How is he? What is his state of mind right now?

I’ve been in an indirect contact with him. He seems to be alright but it is clear he needs our support at this time. For no other reason and because the situation that he is in was the last stage effort. If he had been transferred to Sweden, he would not have had the opportunity to claim asylum, this is very important. In the United Kingdom right now it was actually better for him in the sense that when transferred to Sweden he would not be able to walk into an embassy. So, now he’s used that last swallow of freedom that he has to follow the due process that is afforded to him with regards to seeking asylum in yet another country since his country seems to have abandoned him with the exception of Senator Scot Ludlam.

The Foreign Minister Bob Carr who refuses to respond to any of my questions to him, he suggests that Julian is getting all the treatment that he deserves and he getting every last bit of consular assistance. Well, I visited Julian in London multiple times actually and I can tell you that the only time that he’s had any visit at all from the Australian Government that was actually helpful to him is when Scot Ludlam and Felicity Hill of the Green Party flew all the way on their own dime in order to come to support and to see him. And Bob Carr as far as I know didn’t even bother to show up. He is I think at the moment in Libya and he doesn’t really seem to care very much about what is happening with Julian and isn’t really supporting him. And if you read some of the parliamentary transcripts you will see that he is not exactly a supportive guy and it is quite clear that he is not really interested in helping.

What can people internationally do to help Julian right now?

I think a couple of things. One thing is to understand that it is not that Julian has no interest in resolving these issues in Sweden. I talked to him quite extensively about it. The problem is that Sweden will not make even the most basic guaranties. For example they could interview him right now in the embassy and clear things up, they refused to do that. So, pressuring the Swedish Government to remotely interview him, as they have done in many other cases, that is an extremely useful thing to do.

Furthermore, pressuring the Australian Government to actually protect their own citizens, I mean how sad it is that an Australian citizen had to go to another country to ask for help. And finally writing a letter of support to the Ecuadorian Government suggesting that you would go there as a tourist, that you would be ever so grateful, that giving Assange this asylum would really be a positive thing in the world – that is the thing which everyone can do, it is as simple as going to the embassy’s website and filling in the form. I wrote one of these letters myself.

So, go to the Ecuadorian Embassy website in the UK and fill in the form in support for Julian, right?

As an example. I think trying to convince the UK that giving him a safe passage to Ecuador or should his asylum be granted is of the high priority because there is this really strange situation which may occur which is that Ecuador may grant him the asylum, Sweden may not recognize it and the UK may try to prevent Julian from moving from the Ecuadorian Embassy to Ecuador. And thus he will essentially be in yet another jail type situation. But at least in this case there an extremely good outcome which is that it is unlikely that he would be transferred to the US or that any harm would come to him in that embassy.

You yourself suffered a lot of persecution for your friendship and near association with Assange. Would you like to tell our listeners a little bit what’s happened to you?

I think the simplest thing to describe it, is to just say modern maccarthyism. WikiLeaks in some circles in the US is considered to be the new red. And unfortunately, as far as I’m concerned having been the subject to this, generally I’m proud of my country. I think it is really distasteful kind of events that comes from a sort of nationalistic fervor, it is absolutely insane to support all these wars where are committed countless atrocities. This type of status caused the US Government to detain me, to take my fame, to use the legal apparatus to get data about me, to get records, I have been physically surveyed. I’ve had agents approach me in the airports, I’ve had them approaching me at conferences when I speak. And many of my friends have experienced similar issues. And this is clearly an attempt to intimidate and harass blacklists and to continue the same traditions that Andrew McCarty brought on people.

Ok, thank you. You were listening to an interview with Jacob Appelbaum. He is a developer with the Tor Project in Washington State in the US and a close associate of Julian Assange.


25 June 2012, 15:44

Media Deliberately Smearing Julian

Exclusive Interview with Christine Assange

Exclusive interview with Christine Assange

Download audio file

Christine Assange, mother of WikiLeaks co-founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange, gives an exclusive interview to the Voice of Russia.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder has been seeking asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and is currently not able to leave the premises. If Julian is given asylum, how will he physically be able to fly to Ecuador? Is there any possibility that the US may try to intercept him if he leaves the Embassy? Are there any points in the press for Christine to counter? Find the answers to these and other questions in our interview with Christine Assange.


This is John Robles, you’re listening to an interview with Christine Assange, the mother of Julian Assange.

Hello Ma’am. How are you?

Christine Assange: I’m okay. Before you rang I was dealing with some journalists in Australia, who decided, I don’t know what the motive is, to make money or they’re jealous or whatever it is, but, to viciously smear Julian. Media. Some elements of the media have been deliberately smearing Julian and distorting the facts when they know it's so different. I am aware of some that are too lazy to actually investigate the facts. Right now we are looking at an increase in deliberate smearing and misinforming the public about what is going on.

Are there any points that are out there in the press that you would like to counter right now?

Christine Assange: Okay. Well I suppose just the ones that have been started in the last couple of days and I’ll work backwards. Ahem, Julian didn’t do a “runner” on people that actually backed his bail, they fully supported the application for asylum, because asylum is actually a legal process, internationally recognized as a last resort for someone seeking justice and to continue that Julian is not trying to get out of being questioned by the prosecutor in Sweden. For the last two years he’s been trying to get this prosecutor to interview him, and she refused to interview him in Sweden, she refused both his offers to fly back in to be interviewed and she’s rejected his offer to be interviewed at some British Embassy or Scotland Yard. It’s actually a holding case for U.S. extradition.


Christine Assange: She knows that if she interviews him, she’s going to either have to charge him, or drop the case, and she’s got no evidence. That’s why she wants him back in Sweden to interview him so she can lock him up, that’s exactly what will happen. Before being interviewed, once he is extradited, she will pull him straight into a remand prison on indefinite detention. Thus, assuring that he is there to be picked up by a U.S. extradition warrant, and that he won’t be able to continue his work with Wikileaks.

What do you know about the sealed indictment, they say, that the U.S. grand jury, handed down?

Christine Assange: The proof of that is coming from; when Anonymous hacked into the private global intelligence company based in Texas, that has worldwide reaches.


Christine Assange: Stratfor. And ahem, one of the executive officers actually stated that there was a sealed indictment sitting there, waiting for the right moment, to be served upon Julian. Comes via a U.S. grand jury and there is no proper legal process in obtaining that sealed indictment: there is no judge, there are nine different prosecutors, at the moment, there used to be four, and no defense material is allowed and the jury court (pool) is drawn from Alexandria Virginia which has the highest level of military contractors in the U.S.

Just a reminder you are listening to an interview with Christine Assange.

Can you tell our listeners anything about his asylum application with Ecuador?

Christine Assange: Julian has written a letter to the Ecuadorian president, and a submission was being made. The Ecuadorian president has made a number of statements. He’s stated from what he can see… His comment was: If we treated Julian Assange half as bad as he has been treated, we would have been labeled as dictators and oppressors. He’s also said that he believes Julian has every right to ask for political asylum given the way that he’s been treated. Julian is very happy at the Ecuadorian Embassy, ahem, he’s being treated extremely well. They’re nice people, I have spoken to them as well. Warm and a genuine sorts of people. None of the cold officious bureaucracy that you get in the U.K. or Australia or with Sweden. He’s sounding very relaxed, feeling much safer than he has in a long time.

Has anyone touched upon the matter of him, if he is given asylum; how will he physically be able to fly to Ecuador?

Christine Assange: No, no one has touched on that with me yet. I’m not sure how that’s done. I’m not sure whether the U.S., or the U.K., is going to respect the sovereignty of Ecuador, or not. They don’t usually respect the sovereignty of other people’s countries generally. I’d like to think that there is some way that there will be some negotiations that would be respected, but I am not hopeful.

Do you think there is any possibility that the U.S. may try to intercept him if he leaves the embassy compound? Have you heard anything?

Christine Assange: Definitely. And I think the U.S. is quite capable of assassinating him. In fact it’s been written in some articles out of Washington, that were printed in the Australian papers, that Obama is completely out of control. And that he is drawing up personal lists of people he wants to drone and assassinate, and he’s refusing to actually discuss this with Congress or the justice system at all. He’s running off like a loose cannon around the world.

He actually has his own kill list now, that he signs off on every day.

Christine Assange: We call those people dictators.

This is the first I’ve heard of anything regarding assassination.

Christine Assange: In the first week of December 2010, when Julian was arrested, just prior to that, there were many commentators in the U.S. who were calling for him to be garroted, droned, assassinated, hunted down, and so on it goes, talking in quite graphic terms about what they would do to him. The Stratfor e-mails talked about torturing him when he got into a U.S. prison.

I suppose that we’re seeing, ahem, a rapid decline in democracy, at a frightening level. The American Government is no longer in safe hands, for the rest of the world, or the American people. That people around the world need to tell their governments not comply with American demands and intimidating and bullying their countries and I think the American people need to do something similar. To stand up for their civil rights and with it that would be to stand up for Julian and Wikileaks’ right to operate as a free press. Julian remains uncharged anywhere in the world. The U.S. Treasury has stated he hadn’t broken no law.

Do you know anything about the case of Manning?

Christine Assange: Bradley Manning. The last straw for him; when he was asked to arrest 15 Iraqi dissidents, civilian dissidents. Take them to the Iraqi police for torture. When he asked what it was that they’d done, ahem, it was that they’d run around with a piece of paper asking where the money had gone. That was referring to the reconstruction money. And for that great “crime” of asking how the money was being wroughtered away….

That was U.S. money!

Christine Assange: U.S. money, yes. And ahem, and this is something that the U.S. Government and the U.S. contractors do regularly around the world. They make a lot of money out of the wars, then they make a whole lot of money out of reconstruction. And they also make a lot of money on reconstruction after disasters. This is all money that has been wrongfully obtained, it’s often double quoted, as in Katrina, and this is fraud. It’s fraud and intimidation on people’s countries and it needs to stop, and Wikileaks outed it. Rather than trying to shut Wikileaks up, the American Government should be prosecuting those people involved.

Right exactly. Instead they’re going after the whistleblowers. I mean everything has gone completely crazy in my opinion.

Christine Assange: Dealing mostly to me and other people, it’s not actually what the Wikileaks cables revealed, but the response from the U.S. Government to it. That has shown us, that we do not live in a democracy, at all. It’s a façade. It’s a police state, apparatus can be put over democracy, anytime they feel like it, and they are doing it now. Ahem, and it’s frightening at the rate that it’s creeping through people’s countries. For example Russia Today has been very good in showing what has been going on, but we can’t get our own media to do the same thing.


Christine Assange: Okay no worries.

Thank you very much, I really, really appreciate it.

Christine Assange: I really, really appreciate it too. It’s a chance to get the truth out.

Stay strong down there.

Christine Assange: I will, don’t worry.

That was an interview with Christine Assange. Thanks for listening.


29 May 2012, 21:51

Little Chance for Fairness in Manning Case

John Robles

Little chance for fairness in Manning case

The court-martial hearing in the Bradley Manning case is scheduled to be held in September and according to statements

The court-martial hearing in the Bradley Manning case is scheduled to be held in September and according to statements released by the defense team and a recent filing at the Fort Meade, Maryland military court, they are being hampered by the state’s inadequate response with regards to the production of evidence, including delays and even failure to disclose, that may prove their client’s innocence or significantly reduce his sentence.

The case being as such, less than four months is not enough time for them to properly prepare to counter the arguments and charges of the state which carry the possibility of life imprisonment for their client.

In all Manning is facing 22 charges all related to the release of the mountain of classified and sensitive information that was passed to the site Wikileaks.

The brief history of the case is as follows: in May 2010 Bradley Edward Manning was arrested while on duty in Iraq, where he was working as an intelligence analyst, on charges of having passed classified information to the website WikiLeaks. After his arrest the state broadened the scope of his charges to include several more serious charges which included communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source and the most serious; aiding the enemy which is a capital offense. The state prosecutors have stated that they would not seek the death penalty in this case.

As an analyst for the army Manning had had access to the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet), a system of interconnected computer networks used by the United States Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information, up to and including information classified SECRET.

According to information in the public domain the system operates by using a system of packet switching over the TCP/IP protocols in what they call a 'completely secure' environment". SIPRNet is the U.S. Department of Defense's classified version of the civilian Internet and is the SECRET component of the Defense Information Systems Network.

In the latest defense motion, title “Motion to Compel Discovery” lead defense attorney David Edward Coombs makes several statements and accusations that may be surprising in their scope and in the level of negligence the government has shown in not permitting such a high-profile defendant to properly defend himself.

Many experts and human rights workers all over the world see this as only one in a long line of abuses in this case. The case has attracted international attention for many reasons and has reflected badly on the entire U.S. legal system.

Last summer the international community was up in arms over the treatment that was being given to Manning and the way he was being incarcerated, conditions that many say amounted to torture. Among other things he was subject to stress positions and to enduring long periods of time without sleep and nude. There were many who were afraid, including his defense lawyers, that he was being driven mad by the conditions under which he was being kept. At one point this included being asked every five minutes if he was okay.

All of the facts so far do not point to the possibility that Manning will be given the opportunity to receive a fair trial. He was the chosen scapegoat for what the US characterized as a historic intelligence failure, something conspiracy theorists say was an orchestrated release to tie up the intelligence agencies of the world with disinformation and to serve as the spark to ignite the color revolutions of the Arab spring. According to experts these two things were the only real tangible effects of the release of the information that was attributed to Manning.

The brunt of the defense motion has to do with what is called Brady material, named after the name of the case that brought the law regarding discovery into effect. In the motion Coombs said the U.S. government is not conducting the required Brady searches in a diligent and timely manner.

In point 26 he writes that the defense had just learned that on 29 July 2011, the Government sent out a memo to the Headquarters of the Department of the Army requesting it to task Principal Officials to search for, and preserve, any discoverable information. According to a Memorandum for Principal

Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army, dated April 17, 2012 no action was taken for nine months in response to the Government's request for Brady and other potentially discoverable material. Thus the Defense requests action to taken in line with the April 17, 20l2 government request.

Mr. Coombs continued by saying that the Government has not yet completed a Brady search of its own files (i.e. files which are clearly in the possession, custody, and control of military authorities) even though two years have elapsed since PFC Manning was arrested. This fact does not does not inspire confidence that the Government has diligently conducted a Brady search of other agencies as it was supposed to have done.

ln fact, he says,there are huge questions and inconsistencies in the Government's statements regarding its search for Brady material. For instance the Defense received 12-pages of Brady material several weeks ago, detailing responses by various government agencies that the alleged leaks did little to no damage to those organizations. The Defense was troubled that it was only now receiving such Brody material.

Based on the nature of that Brady material, the Defense believes there is much more similar Brady material out there that the Government has not disclosed. The Defense asked the Government why it was only now receiving such material.  

The answer is clear, it is not in the interests of the government to assist in the Manning’s defense, if he is found innocent and the huge house of cards that has been built up around him comes crashing down many officials at all levels will have to face the piper and while the foxes are guarding the chicken coop assisting someone they accuse is not something that can ever be expected, no matter how much lip service is paid to innocence before guilty.

Have a nice day, wherever you may be.]




Last Update: 03/07/2017 17:59 +0400


Site 1JAR2 Blog Button


JAR2 Biz


 Link to JAR2 Twitter Account  Link to JAR2 YouTube Account  Link to JAR2 Blogger Account  Link to JAR2 Live Journal Account  Link to JAR2 Word Press Account    Link to JAR2 Sonation and Support Page



Copyright JAR2 2003-2017 All Rights Reserved

Publishing Banned Truth Since June 06, 2003