Persecution of Julian Assange Must End

[grarpamp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfcSqn2XSjI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8j42o04AZA

Bringing Julian Assange Home

By John Pilger - ICH - June 17, 2018

This is an abridged version of an address by John Pilger to a rally in
Sydney, Australia, to mark Julian Assange's six years' confinement in
the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

The persecution of Julian Assange must end. Or it will end in tragedy.

The Australian government and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull have an
historic opportunity to decide which it will be.

They can remain silent, for which history will be unforgiving. Or they
can act in the interests of justice and humanity and bring this
remarkable Australian citizen home.

Assange does not ask for special treatment. The government has clear
diplomatic and moral obligations to protect Australian citizens abroad
from gross injustice: in Julian's case, from a gross miscarriage of
justice and the extreme danger that await him should he walk out of
the Ecuadorean embassy in London unprotected.

We know from the Chelsea Manning case what he can expect if a US
extradition warrant is successful -- a United Nations Special
Rapporteur called it torture.

I know Julian Assange well; I regard him as a close friend, a person
of extraordinary resilience and courage. I have watched a tsunami of
lies and smear engulf him, endlessly, vindictively, perfidiously; and
I know why they smear him.

In 2008, a plan to destroy both WikiLeaks and Assange was laid out in
a top secret document dated 8 March, 2008. The authors were the Cyber
Counter-intelligence Assessments Branch of the US Defence Department.
They described in detail how important it was to destroy the "feeling
of trust" that is WikiLeaks' "centre of gravity".

This would be achieved, they wrote, with threats of "exposure [and]
criminal prosecution" and a unrelenting assault on reputation. The aim
was to silence and criminalise WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher.
It was as if they planned a war on a single human being and on the
very principle of freedom of speech.

Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be
enlisted in the media -- those who are meant to keep the record
straight and tell us the truth.

The irony is that no one told these journalists what to do. I call
them Vichy journalists -- after the Vichy government that served and
enabled the German occupation of wartime France.

Last October, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Sarah
Ferguson interviewed Hillary Clinton, over whom she fawned as "the
icon for your generation".

This was the same Clinton who threatened to "obliterate totally" Iran
and, who, as US secretary of State in 2011, was one of the instigators
of the invasion and destruction of Libya as a modern state, with the
loss of 40,000 lives. Like the invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies.

When the Libyan President was murdered publicly and gruesomely with a
knife, Clinton was filmed whooping and cheering. Thanks largely to
her, Libya became a breeding ground for ISIS and other jihadists.
Thanks largely to her, tens of thousands of refugees fled in peril
across the Mediterranean, and many drowned.

Leaked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that Hillary Clinton's
foundation - which she shares with her husband - received millions of
dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of ISIS and
terrorism across the Middle East.

As Secretary of State, Clinton approved the biggest arms sale ever --
worth $80 billion -- to Saudi Arabia, one of her foundation's
principal benefactors. Today, Saudi Arabia is using these weapons to
crush starving and stricken people in a genocidal assault on Yemen.

Sarah Ferguson, a highly paid reporter, raised not a word of this with
Hillary Clinton sitting in front of her.

Instead, she invited Clinton to describe the "damage" Julian Assange
did "personally to you". In response, Clinton defamed Assange, an
Australian citizen, as "very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence"
and "a nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator".

She offered no evidence -- nor was asked for any -- to back her grave
allegations.

At no time was Assange offered the right of reply to this shocking
interview, which Australia's publicly-funded state broadcaster had a
duty to give him.

As if that wasn't enough, Ferguson's executive producer, Sally
Neighour, followed the interview with a vicious re-tweet: "Assange is
Putin's bitch. We all know it!"

There are many other examples of Vichy journalism. The Guardian,
reputedly once a great liberal newspaper, conducted a vendetta against
Julian Assange. Like a spurned lover, the Guardian aimed its personal,
petty, inhuman and craven attacks at a man whose work it once
published and profited from.

The former editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the
WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published in 2010, "one of
the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years". Awards were
lavished and celebrated as if Julian Assange did not exist.

WikiLeaks' revelations became part of the Guardian's marketing plan to
raise the paper's cover price. They made money, often big money, while
WikiLeaks and Assange struggled to survive.

With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a
lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book's authors, Luke Harding and
David Leigh, gratuitously abused Assange as a "damaged personality"
and "callous".

They also revealed the secret password Julian had given the Guardian
in confidence and which was designed to protect a digital file
containing the US embassy cables.

With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, who had
enriched himself on the backs of both Julian Assange and Edward
Snowden, stood among the police outside the embassy and gloated on his
blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh".

The question is why.

Julian Assange has committed no crime. He has never been charged with
a crime. The Swedish episode was bogus and farcical and he has been
vindicated.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape summed it up
when they wrote, "The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen
behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on
WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret
planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and
destruction... The authorities care so little about violence against
women that they manipulate rape allegations at will."

This truth was lost or buried in a media witch-hunt that disgracefully
associated Assange with rape and misogyny. The witch-hunt included
voices who described themselves as on the left and as feminist. They
willfully ignored the evidence of extreme danger should Assange be
extradited to the United States.

According to a document released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a
"Manhunt target list". One leaked official memo says: "Assange is
going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He'll be
eating cat food forever."

In Alexandra, Virginia - the suburban home of America's war-making
elite -- a secret grand jury, a throwback to the middle ages -- has
spent seven years trying to concoct a crime for which Assange can be
prosecuted.

This is not easy; the US Constitution protects publishers, journalists
and whistleblowers. Assange's crime is to have broken a silence.

No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of
what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account. It is
as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the
imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare
and the division and degradation of "unworthy" lives: from Grenfell
Tower to Gaza.

When Harold Pinter accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he
referred to "a vast tapestry of lies up on which we feed". He asked
why "the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless
suppression of independent thought" of the Soviet Union were well
known in the West while America's imperial crimes "never happened ...
even while [they] were happening, they never happened.".

In its revelations of fraudulent wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) and the
bald-faced lies of governments (the Chagos Islands), WikiLeaks has
allowed us to glimpse how the imperial game is played in the 21st
century. That is why Assange is in mortal danger.

Seven years ago, in Sydney, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal
Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull.

I wanted to ask him to deliver a letter from Gareth Peirce, Assange's
lawyer, to the government. We talked about his famous victory -- in
the 1980s when, as a young barrister, he had fought the British
Government's attempts to suppress free speech and prevent the
publication of the book Spycatcher -- in its way, a WikiLeaks of the
time, for it revealed the crimes of state power.

The prime minister of Australia was then Julia Gillard, a Labor Party
politician who had declared WikiLeaks "illegal" and wanted to cancel
Assange's passport -- until she was told she could not do this: that
Assange had committed no crime: that WikiLeaks was a publisher, whose
work was protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, to which Australia was one of the original signatories.

In abandoning Assange, an Australian citizen, and colluding in his
persecution, Prime Minister Gillard's outrageous behaviour forced the
issue of his recognition, under international law, as a political
refugee whose life was at risk. Ecuador invoked the 1951 Convention
and granted Assange refuge in its embassy in London.

Gillard has recently been appearing in a gig with Hillary Clinton;
they are billed as pioneering feminists.

If there is anything to remember Gillard by, it a warmongering,
sycophantic, embarrassing speech she made to the US Congress soon
after she demanded the illegal cancellation of Julian's passport.

Malcolm Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia. Julian
Assange's father has written to Turnbull. It is a moving letter, in
which he has appealed to the prime minister to bring his son home. He
refers to the real possibility of a tragedy.

I have watched Assange's health deteriorate in his years of
confinement without sunlight. He has had a relentless cough, but is
not even allowed safe passage to and from a hospital for an X-ray .

Malcolm Turnbull can remain silent. Or he can seize this opportunity
and use his government's diplomatic influence to defend the life of an
Australian citizen, whose courageous public service is recognised by
countless people across the world. He can bring Julian Assange home.