Wikileaks - Julian Assange Discussion


FOTCM Member
As far as I understood, the charge has nothing to do with the case of why he is currently held. So nothing has really changed unfortunately.
Yes, and I may be misunderstanding the whole thing, but now that they've dropped the investigation, things can move forward with the other charges as he won't be held in Sweden for any guilty plea they may have come up with and the UK/US can continue with their fake charges.


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Yes, and I may be misunderstanding the whole thing, but now that they've dropped the investigation, things can move forward with the other charges as he won't be held in Sweden for any guilty plea they may have come up with and the UK/US can continue with their fake charges.
Maybe that’s the whole reason the fake rape allegations and ensuing ‘investigation’ is being dropped, simply to expedite his extradition to the US. I may be misunderstanding the whole situation too, but that’s what it seems like to be.


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Has anyone at WikiLeaks, other than Assange, stated before that the Clinton emails didn't come from Russia? Now this guy Craig Murray is saying so. The reference to "'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers" brought these C's session bits back to me:

15 Oct 2016
(Beau) I have a question that will kind of change direction a little. I just want to know who's behind the Podesta e-mail leaks that are making Hillary Clinton look very bad?
A: Clinton insider.
Q: (Pierre) An insider who doesn't agree with Clinton and wants to bring her down?
(Arielle) Like a spy?
(Beau) Not Russia?
A: No

9 Dec 2017
(Joe) What about Seth Rich? Did we ever ask about him? The guy who supposedly downloaded the stuff from the server. It was a robbery on a street in Washington, but they didn't take anything from him.
(L) They shot him in the back.
(Niall) Was he the source for the leaks?
A: Mostly.
Q: (L) So there's somebody else?
A: Yes

Article: EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
When I tried to find out how much is done in the EU regarding the case Julian Assange, I found some discussion from April 2019,

From November 2019 there was an article on the World Socialist Web Site reporting on a conference held by Home According to European United Left–Nordic Green Left - Wikipedia they have 41 out of 751 seat in the European Parliament down 11 from before the elections of this year. On the above Wiki you can see which parties are involved in this coalition. While I may disagree with many of their political initiatives, which echo some of the US left calls for Climate Emergency Green New Deal and similar, I can only support their concern for Julian Assange. Here is the text of the article from WSWS followed by a few Tweets:
Conference at European Parliament defends Julian Assange
By Oscar Grenfell
21 November 2019
At a meeting on the premises of the European Parliament in Brussels last Thursday, MEPs, prominent public figures, and significant defenders of democratic rights condemned the US-led pursuit of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and called for his freedom.

The event reflected growing support for Assange throughout Europe and internationally. A German-language petition calling for Assange’s extradition to the US to be blocked has been signed by over 343,000 people.

The forum was sponsored by the European United Left–Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL)
parliamentary grouping, which is comprised of social democratic parties and self-styled left-wing organisations throughout the continent and in Britain. Some of its constituent parties have condemned the persecution of Assange and called for the European powers to take action against it.

The speakers from GUE/NGL stressed the sweeping implications of the US attempt to prosecute Assange for publishing activities carried out in Europe. They warned that it would create a precedent for the US to apply its domestic law to European citizens and to seek the extradition of journalists and activists who fall foul of the American government.

These concerns coincide with a broader hostility within European political circles to the “America First” program of the US administration of President Donald Trump, which is undermining diplomatic relations and international institutions that have been in place since the end of World War II.

Chairing the event, Clare Daley, an MEP representing the Irish Independents 4 Change group, declared that the defence of Assange concerned “the most important press freedom case of our generation.”

Daley stated that the US prosecution of Assange under the Espionage Act for lawful publishing activities was a “vindication” of his decision to seek asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy in 2012. She said that the 2010 publications, for which Assange is charged, were a “watershed moment” which “were, and probably still are, the most important public interest disclosures of our time.”

The documents, Daley remarked, had exposed war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the complicity of nominally neutral countries, such as Ireland. WikiLeaks had revealed that the Irish government allowed the US military to use its airports in transit to the wars in the Middle East. “Stories like this were replicated in every country in the world,” Daley said.

David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an international digital rights group, detailed the unprecedented character of the attempted US prosecution of Assange, which marks the first time that the Espionage Act has been used against a journalist and publisher in over 100 years.

Greene said: “What Julian has been charged with are very standard journalistic practices.” The US indictment placed emphasis on the fact that WikiLeaks had, in 2009, published a list of its “most wanted leaks” and that in an alleged chat with the courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning, Assange had written that “curious eyes never run dry.” Greene noted that “the word ‘encouraged’ is used nine times in the indictment and each time it makes it seem like it’s an improper act.”

US allegations that these facts showed a conspiracy between Assange and Manning were, Greene stated, an attempt to criminalise “standard acts such as encouraging a source to provide information and indicating a public interest in receiving information.” Greene said that this had likely not been attempted by a previous US administration, for fear that it would lead to a “constitutional challenge” based on the “near absolute right to publish information of public interest under US law.”

Nils Melzer addressing the meeting at the European Parliament

Nils Melzer, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, warned that Assange’s case was “so rich in facts and perspectives that it is easy to miss the forest for the trees.” Stressing the need for it to be placed within a broader perspective, he referenced the norms established by the bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries.

The UN official remarked: “Two hundred years ago on this continent we were ruled by people who had absolute power. We decided we didn’t like that. We created states that were to be democracies governed by the people.”

Melzer made clear that the trampling of Assange’s legal and democratic rights was a direct assault on these fundamental norms. “What Julian Assange is accused of in the US is basically investigative journalism, which we need. It is a systematic necessity for the state of democracy that we have investigative journalists,” he declared.

Noting the hypocrisy of the states involved in the US-led pursuit of Assange, Melzer said that WikiLeaks’ publications had disclosed “clear evidence for war crimes having been committed. We have clear evidence for torture having been committed on a large scale, we have clear evidence for corruption, we have clear evidence for a host of human rights abuses and there have been no prosecutions, no investigations, by any of those states that scream so loudly about ‘the rule of law’ in this case.”

Melzer outlined his finding, in May, that Assange has been subjected to “psychological torture.” The UN official stressed that this was the result of the US-led persecution of Assange, including his arbitrary detention in the Ecuadorian embassy for almost seven years, enforced by the British state, a campaign of “public mobbing” and the denial of his basic legal rights by the trumped-up Swedish investigation into allegations of “sexual misconduct.”

Melzer made clear that all of the states involved, including the US, Britain, Sweden and Ecuador, had blithely dismissed his findings that they were culpable for the torture of Assange. The British government had rejected his calls for Assange to be immediately released and had continued to hold him in a maximum-security prison in conditions of virtual solitary confinement.

This treatment, combined with a refusal to allow Assange full access to the legal documents necessary to prepare his defence, along with other flagrant violations of judicial process by the British courts, was intensifying the pressure on the WikiLeaks founder.

Melzer concluded by warning that “psychological torture is not ‘torture lite.’ It aims directly at their personality and emotional identity.” The torture of Assange, Melzer warned, could rapidly spiral into a health crisis that would threaten his life.

Bob Carr, a prominent Labor Party figure, spoke via video-link from Australia. Carr was foreign minister in the Labor government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, which denounced WikiLeaks’ publication of leaks as “illegal” and joined the US-led vendetta against Assange—an Australian citizen whose rights it was obligated to defend.

Since the US charges against the WikiLeaks founder were unveiled in May, however, Carr has spoken of their dire implications. His statements at the forum had the character of a warning to the political establishments in Britain and Australia of the mass hostility that would erupt if Assange died in prison or was extradited to the US.

Carr declared: “The present condition of Julian Assange needs to be addressed. It’s as brutally simple as this, if he were to die in prison then the finger will be pointed, with total justification, at the political leaders who allowed him to be... in maximum security, with intermittent access to his legal representatives.”

The former foreign minister warned: “Should the US win extradition and Assange is seen being escorted in chains across the tarmac... there would be a serious political backlash in this country. Unless you want to be subject to a serious political backlash in Australia you should quietly withdraw from this.”

Carr’s comments underscore the official fears over the immense public support that Assange enjoys. They further clarify the motivations of 11 current Australian parliamentarians, who have formed a grouping calling on the government to end its complicity in Assange’s persecution and to take action to block extradition and secure his release.

In a moving address from the floor, Assange’s father, John Shipton revealed that prior to his last British court hearing on October 21, Assange had been strip searched and “placed in what prisoners call a ‘hotbox.’” Assange’s legal representatives, Shipton stated, had “never seen a defendant brought into court in that condition, in 50 years of working in criminal law.” Assange had struggled to remember his name and date of birth.

Shipton pointed to the historic significance of WikiLeaks publications, noting that the diplomatic cables revealed the US connections of the military leaders who this month staged a coup in Bolivia. Assange and other WikiLeaks staff had also gone to extraordinary lengths to “give names to the dead,” who were slaughtered in the illegal US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

“We must face this ceaseless prosecutorial persecution of Julian and we must insist that it stops, and it stops straight away,” Shipton concluded.
I looked for some Tweets about the above event and found searching first for "guengl assange" and then "@guengl #assange":


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Julian Assange is dying inside Belmarsh Prison in London. Those are his own words, relayed through English journalist Vaughan Smith, who revealed that the Wikileaks founder called him on Christmas Eve to share his greetings. Smith also divulged that Assange told him he is kept in solitary confinement 23 hours per day and is often sedated. December 27th, 2019

Wikileaks Still Holding Powerful to Account as Founder Julian Assange “Slowly Dies” in Prison
Wikileaks Still Publishing State Secrets as Founder Julian Assange "Slowly Dies" in Prison


FOTCM Member
Julian Assange is dying inside Belmarsh Prison in London. Those are his own words, relayed through English journalist Vaughan Smith, who revealed that the Wikileaks founder called him on Christmas Eve to share his greetings. Smith also divulged that Assange told him he is kept in solitary confinement 23 hours per day and is often sedated. December 27th, 2019

Wikileaks Still Holding Powerful to Account as Founder Julian Assange “Slowly Dies” in Prison
Wikileaks Still Publishing State Secrets as Founder Julian Assange "Slowly Dies" in Prison
Sedated, broken and quite besides himself is the only way I can describe the following. A guy was able to talk to Assange while filming the situation. Doesn't look good.

One surely would hope that he will be freed one way or the other and that soon and then go to russia as fast as possible. One can hope, although it is pretty unlikely at this point. Those who got him into that situation should be in prison instead and that fast. Just outrageous!


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Sedated, broken and quite besides himself is the only way I can describe the following.
WikiLeaks founder Assange needs more time to speak to lawyer, court told
WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange leaves Westminster Magistrates Court in London, Britain January 13, 2020.  REUTERS/Simon Dawson
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is not getting the time he needs with his legal team to discuss his fight against extradition to the United States, causing delays to the case, his lawyer told a British court on Monday.

Well, this has to be "a first" ... Reuter's featuring a report on itself?

Britain secretly funded Reuters in 1960s and 1970s: documents
 A file photo from the Reuters archive shows journalists in the Reuters Newsroom at 85 Fleet Street, London, during the British General Election of 1950.   REUTERS
The British government secretly funded Reuters in the 1960s and 1970s at the behest of an anti-Soviet propaganda unit linked to British intelligence and concealed the funding by using the BBC to make the payments, declassified government documents show.

January 13, 2020 - The money was used to expand Reuters coverage of the Middle East and Latin America and hidden by increased news subscription payments to Reuters from the BBC.

“We are now in a position to conclude an agreement providing discreet Government support for Reuter services in the Middle East and Latin America,” according to a redacted 1969 British government document marked “Secret” and entitled “Funding of Reuters by HMG”.

“HMG’s interests should be well served by the new arrangement,” said the document, which was declassified last year. HMG stands for Her Majesty’s Government.

The extent of influence - if any - that the government was able to exert over Reuters news in return for the money is unclear from the documents, which detail a 1969 secret British government financing deal for Reuters.

However, the documents illustrate the level of involvement the government once had in Reuters’ affairs and the explicit agreement to conceal the financing.

Earlier on Monday, the BBC published a story about the government funding. here

“Many news organizations received some form of state subsidy after World War Two,” David Crundwell, a spokesman for Reuters said.

“But the arrangement in 1969 was not in keeping with our Trust Principles and we would not do this today,” said Crundwell, referring to the Reuters Trust Principles, designed to preserve the news agency’s integrity, independence and freedom from bias.

The news gathering activities of Reuters are overseen by the Founders Share Company, which was created in 1984 to uphold the Trust Principles. The principles stipulate that no single interest, group or faction should come to dominate Reuters. here

While Reuters sells news to a broad array of customers including governments, no government exercises control over how or what Reuters produces, Crundwell said.

A BBC spokeswoman said: “The BBC charter guarantees editorial independence irrespective of whether funding comes from the UK government, the license fee or commercial sources.” A British government spokeswoman declined to comment.

The documents show the Information Research Department (IRD), a British anti-Soviet propaganda unit with close ties to British intelligence, led negotiations with Reuters.

The British government’s funding of Reuters in the 1960s and 1970s was disclosed in a 1992 authorized history of the news agency “The Power of News: The History of Reuters”.

In 1969, Reuters needed money to further expand in the Middle East and Western powers such as Britain wanted to bolster their influence against the Soviet Union by expanding news services across the world, the documents showed.

The secret government financing of Reuters - as set out in the documents - amounted to 245,000 pounds ($317,838 at current exchange rates) per year before 1969 but then reduced to 100,000 pounds per year in 1969-1970 and nothing in 1972-1973.

“The new relationship established with Reuters in the Middle East and Latin America can lead to valuable goodwill and cooperation with the Agency on a global scale,” John Peck, former head of the IRD, said in the documents.

The documents said that Reuters “could and would provide” what the government needed, though the government officials conceded that Reuters did not want to appear to be taking decisions at the behest of the British government.

Reuters, founded in London in 1851 and now owned by Toronto-based Thomson Reuters, is one of the world’s largest news organizations.
The Murdock family, Climate Change activism and complaints on news coverage - down playing Climate Change?

News coverage of Australian bushfires highlight Murdoch family rift on climate
Jan.14, 2020 - The younger son and daughter-in-law of News Corp Executive Chairman and Fox Corporation Co-Chairman Rupert Murdoch took aim at both organizations' coverage of climate change, widely viewed as a contributing factor to the Australian bushfires, in a statement to The Daily Beast on Tuesday.

“Kathryn and James (Murdoch’s) views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known,” a spokesperson for the couple told The Daily Beast, and later confirmed the statement’s accuracy to Reuters.

“They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial (of the role of climate change) among the news outlets in Australia, given obvious evidence to the contrary.”

Bushfires have raged in Australia since September, claiming the lives of 28 people, destroying more than 2,500 homes and wiping out forests and farmland the size of Bulgaria.

Critics of News Corp, the largest media company in Australia, say it has participated in the spread of misinformation about the fires and has downplayed the impact of climate change on them.

James Murdoch sits on News Corp’s board and is chief executive of private investment company Lupa Systems. His older brother Lachlan is co-chairman of News Corp and chief executive of Fox Corporation. Kathryn Murdoch has, in the past months, become more vocal about her decade-plus work as a climate activist.

A News Corp spokesperson declined to comment on James and Kathryn Murdoch’s statement to The Daily Beast.

Addressing News Corp’s coverage of the wildfires, he directed Reuters to a Jan. 11 editorial in the News Corp-owned newspaper The Australian, which said:

“In our coverage, The Australian’s journalists report facts about how to tackle bushfires and about how to deal with the impact of climate change. Second, we host debates reflecting the political division that exists in Australia about how to address climate change without destroying our economy.”

“However, our factual account of bushfires, climate change and the remedies, as well as our editorial commentary on these issues, have been wilfully and ineptly misrepresented by The New York Times and Guardian Australia as climate denial.”


Padawan Learner
What an informative thread!! Thank you to all who contributed!
Must say Im under the impression Assange is deliberately being used and abused by secret services and msm for all to see it. Whistleblowing is a NO NO. A nice example of what will happen to you if you try and share government secrets ... Will we ever find out the truth about WL? I think if we do it wont be anytime soon...
Top Bottom