 Good afternoon and good evening everyone and welcome to this event for Denver Action for Assange and Welcome to our two Guests today, Ray McGovern and Mohamed Almazi This event is supported by Assange Defence and is being broadcast by the MCSC network as well as Action for Assange As well as consortium news. My name is Deepa Govindarajan driver I'm a university lecturer and an academic in England and In terms of my contribution to today's event I will set the scene and thereafter We will hear from our two speakers and then we will try to make enough time for questions from everyone We expect to finish in about an hour and 15 minutes Firstly, let me start by welcoming all of you who have taken the trouble to listen to this webinar The case of Julian Assange is really complex and it's one of those cases which feels like Not only that it has gone on for a very long time It's also one that feels quite complex because of the number of nuances to it and I thought it might be helpful, especially for those who are not familiar with the work of WikiLeaks or with What Julian Assange did to to provide a little bit of an overview of what WikiLeaks brought to the world Now, when Julian Assange along with Comrade set up WikiLeaks What seems like a very long time ago now There was the context was one where the media was starting to move from a Quite a paper based media system to a digital media system This media context was also A situation where there were a number of oligarchs just like we see now, oligopolists who are Controlling much of the media empire, controlling much of the narrative Problems of free speech, the The right for citizens to know what their governments and what corporations were doing in their name Were upmost in many people's minds Also in this In this context, we had a situation where Now that a lot of data was not just on paper, it was electronic There was whistleblowers who previously would communicate with journalists We're now having more and more difficulty communicating the information Because large volumes of data were present in electronic form And WikiLeaks provided this wonderful new system where They brought in the innovation of what we take as for granted now, which is the Dropbox Utility So they brought in a secure digital Dropbox Where whistleblowers, those who were inside these corporations, those who were inside governments Could tell us ordinary citizens who were sitting outside and couldn't see past The complexity and the opacity of these institutions What was really going on and how our taxes, our money, our shareholder, our investments Were being used by those who were supposedly supposed to protect our interests In doing so, WikiLeaks connected whistleblowers And journalists through this secure platform that was such a fantastic innovation that to this day There is security not just for the whistleblower, but also for the documents and the evidence that the whistleblower provides Now this is really important because it allows us to step away from a model where you may have An embedded journalist perhaps sitting within a group of army operatives in Afghanistan or Iraq And feeling compelled because of loyalty to them to report the war in a certain way Now being disintermediated in a way and for us to be able to listen to their stories, of course, but also look at the evidence ourselves And see what's really going on The veteran journalist Patrick Coburn has spoken about how, for example, they knew about the kinds of horrors that were going on at Abu Ghraib prison They knew about the killings that were taking place in the streets of Baghdad, but they did not have the evidence that they needed in order to be able to get The New York Times, the Washington Post or the Guardian to be able to run with the stories And what WikiLeaks brought was this ability for journalists to interrogate the evidence But also to defend positions when they were taking a very strong stance against very powerful entities Now this was really important because remember journalists were under the pressure of a new digital news cycle where people have a very short attention span and where news stories were Were running very quickly where there wasn't time for enough depth. Sometimes journalists were under pressure to report four, five, 10 stories a day, at which point the quality of the journalism faltered And it was also a point where much of the information that was provided through declassified files was coming in way too late for you to make proactive positive changes to the way wars or criminality were taking place around the world Now, while WikiLeaks is known for the war reporting that it the evidencing of war that it did through the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs What was really important was also the work it did in relation to companies like Trafigura, which many of you who may be activists in relation to environmental rights might be interested in where Trafigura was dumping toxic waste off the Ivory Coast and it was through WikiLeaks releases that we were able to get this Get this information. We were also able to understand that Things which were relevant to local contexts. For example, people sitting in Tunisia could hear about local corruption because WikiLeaks partnered Not just with the big media giants like the New York Times or the Washington Post. They also partnered with local media organizations that could Review the evidence, make sure it was sound and also tailor it to the context in which it was relevant because corruption in Tunisia, for example, may not have been relevant to the to the average reader of the New York Times. But it did make the difference WikiLeaks releases did make the difference to throwing out a corrupt government there. So WikiLeaks revolutionized journalism and it brought in a new technology enabled way of engaging with the truth and engaging with the evidence. And this was a huge, huge achievement, which has to a certain extent been lost by a number of the Of the incidents that have taken place since when powerful actors whose actions and whose crimes, including war crimes have been revealed, whether it was at Guantanamo where a seven 16 and a half 17 year old boy alzahrani was Interred and thereafter supposedly committed suicide at the age of 21 or whether it was Khaled el-Masri who was abducted on the Macedonian border, Rendited and then sodomized and nobody knew this was taking place. He was then tortured for about three months when the CIA realized that it was a case of mistaken identity. They still did not release Mr El-Masri. Instead, they continued to squabble amongst themselves as to who would take responsibility. Six months later, Mr El-Masri was released on the Albanian border where he thought he was going to be shot. He was then repatriated back to Germany where the German government, it later transpired, we found out from WikiLeaks's cable gate releases Had been put under huge pressure by the American government not to prosecute the CIA operatives who were involved in Mr El-Masri's torture. Mr El-Masri's case went to the European courts at which stage he got some justice for the horrendous destruction of his life and his family life. And all this while Mr El-Masri would have had no one to speak his case had it not been for the WikiLeaks releases. So in cases like these it becomes very obvious how important WikiLeaks was. For us ordinary people to understand what was happening on the ground and we see this in terms of the war in Iraq, we see this in terms of the war in Afghanistan, where a lot of people did not know how bad it was and were not as, of course, people were opposed when Britain and America went into this illegal war but a lot of people didn't know how bad it was until the WikiLeaks releases. And it is these releases that changed the world, whether it was the collateral murder video, which showed American Apache helicopters gunning down civilians, including two Reuters journalists and engaging in serious war crimes, including harming children and treating it like some kind of game, video game, and then covering up their criminality. These are things that WikiLeaks brought to light and it's really important that we're here to talk about why it is that Julian Assange continues to be in Belmarsh maximum security prison in Britain, when a judge in Britain has already ruled that he should not be extradited to the United States. But before we go into talking to our two speakers, one of the questions that came to us before we started this or rather came to the Denver team was about one of the smears in relation to Julian. And because we have a panel which is not as specialised in rape or sexual assault allegations, we have put together or extracted a little clip from Professor Niels Nelson. Niels is the UN special rapporteur on torture, arbitrary detention and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Along with two medical experts, independent medical experts, he visited Julian at Belmarsh maximum security prison and determined that Julian had suffered from torture. Now, each of the independent experts came to their conclusion by themselves and then these reports were compared. So Niels is a real expert, not just on torture, but he is also a fluent Swedish speaker. And the next clip, which I hope our tech people will put out now, will explain Niels' view of that smear before we then return to me and then to Ray, over to you, tech. Go into two points more specifically because they have been very prominent in destroying the reputation of Julian Assange. And the first thing I started out with really was the rape allegations in Sweden. Why was that so important? It is because, well, first of all, obviously rape is a grave crime and so we need to take it seriously and look at those allegations. The second thing is this was the turning point. This happened in, these allegations were made in August 2010, just about three weeks after the big Afghanistan war diary was published, was leaked by WikiLeaks. So the biggest military leak in US history. And this was the turning point at which a success story where Assange became more and more famous and celebrated for informing the world about the dirty secrets of states, it turned and it became a story of persecution. From that point on it's basically downhill for Julian Assange and so I really wanted to go back to that story and look into this. And I was able to do that with perhaps better than others because part of my family is Swedish so I actually speak the language and I was able to read a lot of original police documents and proceedings that are not accessible in English language. And what I found was quite shocking. I found that Julian Assange had been in Sweden for a conference and he had had sexual contact with two women and this is not contested on both sides but it was confidential and so that that did happen. In both cases the women ended up having unprotected sex with Julian and apparently and the circumstances on how that happened are contested. But they did go to the police, both of them these women who knew each other. They went to the police. Not because they wanted to report a crime but because they were worried to have contracted HIV and they wanted him to take an HIV test. And he had just said well I've taken one so it's fine you don't have to worry about it I don't have time and they took it much more seriously. Obviously wanted to push him and went to the police to ask whether they could force him to take an HIV test. And now that is very clearly documented in text messages that are available that these women wrote to each other at the time and two friends by emails. That is the only reason they went to the police. And we can also see that the police immediately turned it around and said well this is really about rape. And the women didn't agree with that but they were informed that this was not up to them. That the state had an obligation to prosecute rape and that they were going to make a rape allegation out of this rape investigation. And from that point on you can see text messages between those women where they're extremely stressed and say well we didn't want this we didn't intend to do this. The police started it all, we didn't want to be part of this, but now we have no choice. And so there is really what we can see is that this doesn't fit with the story that was spread by the authorities of women going to the police and complaining about rape. It looks much more like the police taking a case that had nothing to do with rape initially but with unprotected intercourse and potential HIV infection. And turn it around and use it to their advantage which was to portray as such as a suspected rapist. Now why would they do that? Sweden is a close ally of the US in Afghanistan. As is Britain as are other countries. They all have been exposed by WikiLeaks. We should not make any mistake about this. Established governments don't like WikiLeaks because it threatens their way of operating where they can basically do their business in secret and very often unfortunately behind the backs of the parliament and even the public of their own countries. And when we see the types of things that WikiLeaks published, it really embarrassed all these governments and not only embarrassed them but even brought evidence for war crimes and very serious cases of corruption and human rights violations. Thank you to our tech team. That clip was from a wonderful event at the Unitarian Church in Milwaukee where our first speaker Ray McGovern spoke alongside Professor Meltzer and I'd now like to just briefly introduce Ray and then invite him to speak. Ray is a, firstly let me explain Ray's beard. Ray has been growing his beard since the start of lockdown in solidarity with Julian. So I think that's something to be noted in itself but Ray's not just known for the beard. He's also a former CIA officer turned political activists and was one of the co-founders of Veterans for Peace. I'm sorry I must have pronounced that wrong. Ray was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and in the 80s chaired the National Intelligence Estimates and also prepared the president's daily brief. He received the Intelligence Commendation Medal on his retirement but it returned it in 2006 to protest the CIA's involvement in torture. So this is someone who's an insider who is now sitting on the outside and helping us to really understand what's going on behind the scenes. And we're really grateful that you chose to come and speak at this event organized by the Denver Action to Free Assange and over to you Ray. Thank you. Ray you'll need to unmute yourself so thank you. I am now unmuted. Thank you for having me and thank you for your very good, deep for your good introduction, especially calling attention to the video clip on on the collateral murder where it was Julian who revealed what happened in cold blood, 12 Iraqis, so the citizens killed, and where there was an embedded New York or Washington Post journalist who saw the whole thing, who saw the whole clip and decided not to say anything about it. Now he's a high-muckety muck on the Washington Post that shows you how corrupt the system is. Now I'd like to say a couple of words about Julian the person, because I'm pleased to be able to say he's a good friend of mine. I visited him several times at the embassy in Ecuadorian embassy in London, and we had really good conversations. He's the real deal, as we say in the Bronx, a mensch. And one thing that comes to mind here is his father, John Shipton. He was asked at one point, he was asked at one point, you know, how do you explain, how do you explain the enormous courage that Julian showed. And John Shipton said, you know, he's always been very firm about injustice. I mean, most children, of course, despise injustice and we lose that sense of injustice as we grow older. But with Julian, he hasn't lost it, and still would suffer himself before allowing another to suffer cruelty. A person that has that kind of compassion and the kind of smarts to set up the system that Julian and others in WikiLeaks did, and intent on telling the truth. I mean, Julian, one of Julian's slogans was, the truth will always win. And my Catholic worker friends in Los Angeles did a little bumper strip saying, Jesus loves WikiLeaks. And then the little scriptural allusion to, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Well, this is very dangerous. This is incredibly dangerous to people who thrive on secrecy, who do war crimes because they can, because they can keep it secret. So what needs to happen? You have to persecute this person. You have to make him unable to do these things. And you have to make him an object lesson to any other journalist who might want to do this kind of thing. This is what happens to you, and that's what his trial is all about, or his extradition hearing is all about in London. So Niels Meltzer exposed not only the legend that has just been exposed to you, but he went and brought a team of doctors into Belmont Prison, established that Julian was surely a victim of psychological torture. Niels Meltzer, of course, being the UN reporter for torture. Now I want to say something about Julian the Mensch, the person I know. And, you know, it's hard for me to watch what's happened to him. Maybe we have the first slide prepared that talks about Julian. There it is. Now, these were happier times. You'll see Julian there in the middle and right is on the left as you look at it. Elizabeth Murray and Colleen Rowley on the right. We were there after he had been presented with the Sam Adams Award for integrity. That was 2013 happier times, even though he was kept up in the Equatorian Embassy happier times. Next slide, please. Now, here's Julian. No one, very few people in the West have seen this. Here's Julian with Gabriel, his first son, Stella Morris, his mother, and Julian are partners. And here must be about three years ago judging by the size of both of them and the extreme look of glee on the part of Julian. May I have the next slide, please. Here's John Morris with Gabriel on the right and a little Max on the left. Gabriel seems to be irrepressible, much like his father. Max looks seems to be feeling the absence of his father, at least in that picture. Next slide, please. Ah, there he is. Now we Irish would say, ah, Gabriel, he's the, he's the spit of his father. Okay, the spitting image of his father. What's he saying to us there? I imagine he's saying, look, you see that little wire there and the instrument. I can, I can do magical things with that, just like my dad. And I'm going to do it in order that the truth will prevail. Next slide, please. This is the iconic picture photo of Julian being unceremoniously extricated from the Ecuadorian Embassy. It was almost two years ago, takes two years to grow this kind of thing. I wanted to express some sort of solidarity with Julian, and as one of my favorite lines of my favorite Russian poems puts it, Drogo lutsy droogs a bullies. Okay, it means a best friend can easily forget his best friend. I didn't want to forget Julian. It's easy to do here in America. And so every time I go past the mirror or window, I remember Julian, send up a little prayer that he'd be extricated from this terrible situation. One more, one more slide please. Okay, there's Julian being transported back and forth to Belmarsh prison. And, you know, it's, it's just really terrible to see the condition he's in. He's been described by people like Craig Murray, our mutual friend from Craig sitting through these sessions in Belmarsh and at the court. So this is rather, rather unfortunate. And that's what he looks like now, maybe even worse now that he's had more psychological torture, and his health is in bad shape. So let's end the slide presentation here, and I'll continue. There's lots more to say. If you've seen those photos of Julian. He's reminded of you remember Willie Lohman in Death of a Salesman. I have a quote here from that, which I'd like to read it's from his wife, Linda. And this is what she says, she's rather desperate. This is what she says in Death of a Salesman. He's a human being. And a terrible thing is happening to him. So attention must be paid. He's allowed to fall into his grave like an old dog. Attention, attention must be paid finally to such a person. So, what does that mean? That means that people like Niels Melser, who has done incredible work once he finally, once he finally admitted. And this is interesting because it leads into the next segment of what I want to say, and has to do with the media. Now, two years ago, Niels Melser penned a op ed. It was the anniversary, the anniversary of the International Day in support of torture victims, so he thought this would be a natural. And he composed this op ed, and he sent it as he says right up front. So, to the Guardian, to the Times, to the Financial Times, to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Cranber, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thompson Reuters, and Newsweek. None responded positively. And quote. Why? There's no evidence in this op ed. As he puts it, quote, In the end, it finally dawned on me why I was so reluctant to take up Julian's case just even to look into it. I had been blinded by propaganda. And Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Well collateral murder vividly illustrates one set of crimes. But the Afghan and the Iraqi war logs expose still more war crimes. And the folks that claim that irreparable harm was done to sources and methods or people who cooperated with us in Afghanistan and Iraq. That was the first reaction, of course, from all the top muckity mucks. And when Carl Levin, then head of the Senate, the Senate Armed Forces Committee, asked the head of defense, namely Robert Gates, give me a paper on that. I just had to admit that these charges that people had been harmed by virtue of the revelations in WikiLeaks were, as he put it, quote, significantly overwrought. In other words, no one was harmed as a result of this. I was seconded, of course, by the command in Afghanistan and the NATO people who are involved in Afghanistan. So that is a red herring, as are so many other red herrings. Now I want to just dip into the how bad the media has been on this by playing for you a clip. And I have to sort of introduce it first because so it makes sense. Well, they tried to get the Swedes to charge Julian with rape. That didn't work for reasons Niels Melsa explained quite vividly. There was no evidence there. There were no charges. All there were were allegations of sexual improprieties. This is a classic arrow in the quiver of secret agencies who wanted to fame, who want to really put somebody out of commission. Okay, so that first. Now, what happened to people who wanted to speak up for Julian, since the rape things didn't stand the light of day, well, they decided that they would say he was a, guess what. You know, what's the worst thing I call somebody in 2010 2011. Yeah, you're right. He was a terrorist, a terrorist. One, one high muckity milk called him a high tech terrorist. Who is that? Well, for the name. Well, he was vice president at the time. I forget his name. I think it was Biden, something like that. Yeah. So this, you know, I wanted to give you an example, more than my words as to what happens when these cable outlets and all these other news outlets get the word, okay, we've flunked out on rape stuff. The Swedes just won't make it up anymore. We'll call him a terrorist. That'll get him. Okay. Let's pass that along to the media. Now, on CNN, they had about 30 people interviewed. I don't exaggerate saying, oh, yeah, he's a terrorist. Oh, Julius on terror, terror, terror, terror. Okay. Somebody must have said to them, you know, you should have some, somebody present the other side and clear and balance, you know, so get somebody in there. Get somebody in who will say, no, he's a journalist. Give it. They're probably you fight. So they found McGovern. Okay. McGovern comes in there and he I'm loaded for bear because I knew what had gone on. What I didn't know. And which I learned later is that prior to my coming on there, there was a clip from Bonnie and Clyde. I'm glad I didn't know that because it was bad enough. What I mean to say here is that when I show this last four and a half minute clip, and then I'll still be within my time limit. I want you to kind of ponder what the teaching points are here. This one fellow, his name is Don Lemon. He was a young fellow then. And actually, after our performance, he and I, I said, well, you know, I hate to do that to somebody like Don Lemon. He's finished now. And no, no, now he has his own show. Okay. How about McGovern? Well, McGovern hasn't been on CNN domestic since then. That's more than 10 years ago. So you pay a price, if you say the truth, that of course, Julian is paying a very, very heavy price. So if I can ask our wonderful technical person to be ready with that clip. Now I have to warn you that there will be a 10 to 15 second kind of blank before it plays. So please don't go away. It'll come on. And then I'll just finish my remarks by saying, please draw the conclusions that you can from this little clip. In spite of public protests, it is clear many leaders in American government think the founder of WikiLeaks is a criminal. I hope the Justice Department will soon indict him and that we will be able to extradite him from Britain and bring him back to stand trial in the United States. I think that the release of this information has put at risk American national security. One politician even called Assange a high tech terrorist. So how can one person's terrorists also be called the ultimate journalist? For perspective on that, we go to Ray McGovern who is live in Washington Forest. McGovern is part of a group of former CIA members who recently wrote a letter praising Assange's actions. So thank you for joining us tonight. Why do you think Assange is doing the right thing by releasing all these documents? Well, I think the question as to whether he's a journalist or not is the proof is in the pudding. The function of a journalist is to record the actions and behavior of those in power and make it possible for the public to know what's going on. Thomas Jefferson said that if there were a choice between a government and a free press, he'd pick a free press. And so this is what's needed to preserve a democracy. And the idea is to tell as close to the truth as possible and not simply take notes on what the government is saying. That's what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have done to the embarrassment of the government because a lot of their dealings are kept in secret and need not be kept in secret. So you don't like the way he's been labeled a terrorist or a hacker. You actually do think that he is a journalist. I want to get that correct. Do you think he's a journalist? Of course he's a journalist according to the definition that I just listed here. He's making information available to the American people and others who are frankly malnourished on what I call the fawning corporate media who act more as stenographers than they do as journalists. So you don't think there's information in those documents that should have been left out or maybe blacked out that may be detrimental to the country, maybe detrimental to our troops or even other countries because that's what I journalists would have fact checked and there are standards. And no one wants to put people in danger and in jeopardy. I think that's what most journalists would have done. Julian Assange didn't do that. Well, I correct you on that. He did do that. He made that information available to the Pentagon and the State Department and they refused to expunge it. They refused to redact it. Now what has been released? It is a canard. It is a red herring to suggest that lives have been put in danger. The only lives that are put in danger are the troops that we sent over to Iraq and Afghanistan under false pretenses. Now the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said that these reports about lives in danger are greatly overwrought his word. Okay, he said that no sources of methods have been compromised. NATO has said the same thing and our command in Afghanistan has said the same thing. Not one person has been identified as having been spat upon much less imprisoned because of these documents. Now that doesn't mean that the pundits here in this country don't say it 10 times a day. Saying it 10 times a day does not make it true. His attorney said the same thing on the steps of the courthouse that this was a setup talking about the charges in Sweden. This was just one way to get him into custody to keep him there. And that this is what journalists should be doing. So you really you really think we and I'll say we are journalists. You think we have it wrong and that he is actually not a pariah. We should be praising him and following his lead rather than calling him a pariah. We actually will all do respect. I think you should be following his example. Seek out the secrets. Find out why it is that my taxpayer money is going to fund trafficked young boys performing dances in women's clothing before the Afghan security forces who we are recruiting to take over after we leave. Take a look at the documents and see the abhorrent activities that are our government has endorsed or done through its contractors. And then tell me you don't think the Americans can handle that. Well I think they can handle it but they can't handle it if they don't have it. All right Ray McGovern. Thank you. Appreciate your time. It's going to have to be the last word. When we come when we come right back here across the cyber attacks launched in Ray. Did you want to come back in with a few final comments. Let me just unmute you. I think the systems muted you again just a second. Got it. Okay. So in summary that was my last word on CNN. Now, the only thing I'll add here is a little quote that I just saw in my collection quotes from under Raffi Roy. And this I would ask you to take seriously because because it might lead to some action and not just commiserating quote. The trouble is that once you see it. You can't unsee it. And once you've seen it. Keeping quiet. Saying nothing becomes a political act just as much as speaking out. There's no innocence anymore. Either way, you are accountable. Now it may look like a bleak future may look like tilting with Wim Lills to to pursue Julian's just cause. We do that anyway. We do that anyway because it's the right thing to do. And because we're going to follow Julian's example. Because that's what he's chosen to do the right thing. And with that, I'll sign off. Thanks for your attention. Thank you Ray. Thank you for that. Wonderful clip. And also for what you said it is you're right it is very hard once you understand what's really going on in this case. And I think it's important to take a look away. And this is also very important that we recognize that what has been what the governments have tried to do by using these smears is to hide that wonderful example that Julian and Chelsea and others set when WikiLeaks provided that information to the world. I think we have to follow in order that we don't have unjust wars anymore. Our next speaker is someone whom I got to know a little bit better at the old Bailey, I was a legal observer at Julian's trial, and Mohammed was one of the few reporters who's been persistently consistently been at all the hearings alongside racial activists. It's essentially taking a the typical, the ideal thing that a journalist is supposed to do, actually looking at the facts, analyzing them critically examining them, and then reporting on them for the world to know. Mohammed is a, is of course a journalist and has experience at the Canary, which is an independent news website here in Britain, Spachnik and elsewhere. But he's also legally trained and I, while I was researching the biographies for today's event I realized that Mohammed had trained at a, at Michael Mansfield's chambers which is a very prestigious chambers. Michael Mansfield of course is very well known here. So, he has a legal background and I'm hoping that Mohammed will be able to tell us a little bit about, not just how the case has unfolded and of course, you know, most of you will have heard that 40 NGOs, including supporters without borders and Amnesty International were disbarred from attending Julian's extradition hearings on the first day of the hearings in September, which meant that the coverage in Britain at least was extremely poor, although it was much better than it had been before. And Mohammed was one of those people who was in the room and will be able to relay his experiences over to you Mohammed. Thank you very much, Deepa Ray and the partner organizations that's helped to make this particular panel happen, including Assange Defense, Denver Action to Free Assange and I believe consortium news or live streaming this via Twitter. I'd like to start off with a quote from Dunia Miatovic, the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights quote that from her statement in February 2020 so a year ago now, she gave her view on the case of Julian Assange the extradition case, which also reflects the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe and just for Americans who don't know what that is it was set up in 1949. After World War two, it's the body that set up the European Court for Human Rights and the UK is a founding member and remains a member to this day, despite leaving the European Union those are two separate organizations. So, Dunia Miatovic said in dealing with a Sandra's case quote Julian Assange's potential extradition has human rights implications that reach far beyond his individual case. The indictment raises important questions about the protection of those that publish classified information in the public interest, including those that expose human rights violations. The broad and vague nature of the allegations against Julian Assange and the offenses listed in the indictment are troubling as many of them concern activities at the core of investigative journalism in Europe and beyond. Consequently, allowing Julian Assange's extradition on this basis would have a chilling effect on media freedom and could ultimately hamper the press and performing its task as purveyor of information and public watchdog in democratic societies. These sentiments have been echoed by Amnesty International, the National Union of Journalists, the European Federation of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom of the Press Foundation to name but a few. Even papers like The Guardian The New York Times, which played such a strong role in perpetuating various smears against both Assange and WikiLeaks, despite making use of its documents and revelations, have written editorials opposing the charges as a threat to press freedom. And I would just suggest that audience members, if you're unaware of the positions taken by these various organizations, think ask yourself why it is that that hasn't been clear over the last couple of years of media coverage because that's quite significant. There have of course also been open letters signed by scores of hundreds of lawyers and jurors, academics, political figures worldwide. It's important to note that the indictment against Julian Assange is entirely focused on his role in obtaining and publishing national security or national defense documents from 2009 to 2011, provided to him by US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning. These files are known collectively as the Afghan diaries, the Iraq war logs, the Guantanamo Bay detainee files, and the diplomatic cables which were referred to in part both by Ray and Deepa at the outset of this event. They have nothing whatsoever. The charges, the 18 charge indictment has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2016 election or anything else, and it never has. 17 out of 18 of those charges are under the Espionage Act, which has never before been used to prosecute a publisher. That's the 1917 Espionage Act. One of the key things to understand and which were discussed heavily during the extradition hearings in September is that the Espionage Act is and the charges that are levied against Assange under the Espionage Act are strict liability offenses. No harm is needed to be proven. So even if the prosecution flatly says at the beginning of the trial, we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever, we accept that we have no evidence whatsoever that Assange, the revelations from WikiLeaks, which were also published by other outlets as well, led to any harm coming to a person, it's irrelevant. No harm needs to be proven, and I don't think the prosecution would say that. They would try to suggest that some people might have been harmed even though they can't actually prove it. His intentions and motivations are also irrelevant. So if he tries to explain why it is that he helped, that he published information that he did, the prosecution can object and the judge, if past cases were leakers were prosecuted, because as I said, a publisher has never been prosecuted, if past cases are anything to go by, it is now settled law that motivations are also irrelevant. Like I said, it's a strict liability offense. Did you obtain these documents? Yes. Okay, guilty. That's 10 years. Did you publish these documents? Yes, guilty. That's another 10 years. And there, like I said, there are 17 charges under the Espionage Act alone, each carrying a maximum of 10 years, that's 170 years, even if he were, were he to be convicted, even if he were to receive a third of that, that's still an effective life sentence. The trial would also be at the so-called Espionage Court in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the jury pool comes from areas dominated, where the employers are dominated by the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, the US Pentagon, so that's the armed forces and various weapons manufacturers. So the jury pool would come from workers or retired workers from those institutions or their family members, almost certainly. It has a near, if not 100% conviction rates for, in cases, brought against people who are leakers, as I say, or people charged under the Espionage Act. It's also important to remember that something else that is not a US citizen, he never took an oath to serve the interests of the CIA of the US Pentagon, nor was he present or based in the United States at the time of the leaks. WikiLeaks as well is not based in the United States. And the chilling effect here cannot be underestimated. And I'll just refer to a quote from Ben Weisner of the American Civil Liberties Union, when he was referring to the US indictment against him, quote, for the first time in the history of our country. The government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information. This is an extraordinary escalation of the Trump administration's attacks on journalism and a direct assault on the First Amendment. It establishes a dangerous precedent that can be used to target all news organizations that hold the government accountable by publishing its secrets. And it is equally dangerous for US journalists who uncover the secrets of other nations. If the US can prosecute a foreign publisher for violating our secrecy laws, there's nothing preventing China or Russia from doing the same, end quote. And as Ray McGovern noted in that clip that we've just heard, attempts to focus on Assange as an individual distract from what he did, which relates to what the First Amendment understands to be journalistic activity. So it is quite frankly irrelevant whether the corporate state, as it were, so that is corporate press or government, considers someone to be a journalist under the First Amendment. It is the activity that is protected journalistic activity. So the publication of material or the reporting of material. So if a doctor sees an event outside of his house, police engaging with some people, he films it, publishes it online. That could be said to be journalistic activity, even though they are a medical professional. It would be irrelevant. You can't say that that doctor's actions aren't protected because he's actually a doctor. And in Assange's case, his focus is as a publisher of information. And it's also, I think, an interesting point to raise that WikiLeaks thus far, and this is a perfect record that is difficult to maintain, but thus far has a perfect track record of publishing information that is truthful. There is yet to be a single document that WikiLeaks has published that has been shown to be false. There is no other news outlet that I'm aware of anywhere in the world that can make such a claim. I've actually had to go back and amend articles. I've written and update them and correct them to say even on little things that this name was misspelled or this thing didn't happen at this date or what have you to clarify an article. I don't want to run over too much time because I'm aware of the fact that there may be this question and answer section as well where people are going to want to ask questions. But I do think it's important for people to understand that the charges have always been about his role in publishing, obtaining and publishing those documents. And people may not be aware, but there is no charge alleging that Assange has actually hacked documents. There's only one charge of five year potential five year sentence under the of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, which relates to a discussion that Julian Assange had with Chelsea Manning in relation to whether or not we're Manning was asking Assange whether she might be able to help her to crack a password hash, but that had nothing to do with her obtaining documents she already had access as we've seen to hundreds of thousands of documents as did hundreds of thousands of other employees of the US government and the national security state. So, even then whenever we hear about the hacking charge, it's not actually a charge of actually having hacked anything merely a discussion as to whether or not Assange could assist and ultimately Assange came back saying sorry, I'm unable to. And it's that conspiracy charge alleged conspiracy charge, which multiple professional press professors and journalists who gave witness testimonies and spoke at the hearings in September explains that is normal behavior for a journalist. There is a great quote that I'll just end with this and then I'll pass it back to you Deepa. Good reporters don't sit around waiting for someone to leak information. Journalism historian and Professor Mark Felsteen wrote in his witness statement to the court. They actively solicited they push, prod, cajole, counsel, entice, induce, invigil, weedle, sweet talk, badger and nag sources for information. The more secret, significant and sensitive, the better end quote. And there were multiple US witnesses, including award-winning journalists who explained this to the judge repeatedly and the judge took nook to take made note of that but unfortunately in her final judgment she did ultimately seem to dismiss that point. And if people want to know more about the specifics, you can see on the screen right now an article I wrote for Jacob and which says this ruling is a victory for Julian Assange but still a blow against press freedom. And that's because although the judge ruled that Assange should not be extradited that was based on health grounds that he was at high risk of suicide were he to be subjected to US prison conditions upon extradition. It was not based upon press freedom grounds, which is why this is such a serious case so it's, it's a partial victory in that respect and I'll leave it there. Thank you Mohammed, and that was a really fantastic summary of the P aspects of the case. Before we invite questions from the audience, we have a few already queuing up I just wanted to remind everybody that if you're asking questions via zoom there is a question and answer tab, and I'd also like to remind the panelists to take a quick look at that tab. So we can bring in some of the answers. If you'd like to ask a question if you could please paste it into that tab that'd be really helpful and may also remind our able helper from Denver action to free a sound if she might pass on any questions which might come in through YouTube or Twitter. Via the panelists chat that would be really helpful and I'll make sure we bring those up. And the first question is from jam dunk and he or she asks, could you elaborate on what it means. When you talk about a threat to the free press. Will other independent journalists be prosecuted or persecuted as a result of what's happening to a sound. Would you like to take that Mohammed. Sure, I won't go much further just because I think so that question was put up before I gave my particular presentation. I think you can see from the concerns both from the ACLU as well as the European Commission for Human Rights and the other bodies that have come out against the charges and against extradition and prosecution is that that is exactly what this The, it doesn't necessarily open up prosecutions or persecution if you like against independent journalists it opens it up against any potential journalists it's not you know the the espionage act, which in theory has nothing to do with journalism. If it can be used to prosecute Julian Assange there's absolutely no reason why it can't be used against anybody else engaged in in similar things and similar activities in the future. And I think quite often what is done with cases and laws which are oppressive laws and if people can should look into the history of the 1917 espionage act we didn't have time to get into that but I won't I won't now. Just to say that the way prosecutions are often justified or an oppressor laws are justified or against people who are maligned in society at large rightly or wrongly fairly or unfairly. And once you open that the door to buy by going against certain individuals who might not be popular for whatever reason. Then that's it you've paved the way for anybody else than to be targeted as and when it's deemed necessary because you've set the precedent. And quite frankly, even if Assange were to be found not guilty, right, it would nonetheless send a terrible or if it was found guilty and reversed years later on appeal it would still mean that a human being could have to go through a rather hellish experience for years of thousands of dollars and legal fees that they have to somehow find and you're left in the situation where former CIA whistleblower Thomas Drake. Is it CIA or NSA I think Thomas Drake was with the CIA who rey knows well, he said during one interview, you know, even if you win your case, you lose, because, you know, you go bankrupt, you lose your home. You lose your marriage. Every time you try to find a job somewhere. There's intimidation against the employers of hiring you and the only place you can find a job in the end is at the Apple store. And so, you know, there is such a thing as lawfare where you just prosecute people into oblivion, and ultimately whether you secure a conviction or not then sort of becomes immaterial that might just be the icing on the cake from the perspective of the state. One of the reasons I brought it back up is it's it's also very, very dangerous for activists around the world. The Assange president that is being said means that if you handle classified information and governments of course classify information, not just because it's hugely top secret about it. A lot of information we know and I'm hoping that Ray will comment on this is classified to protect people from embarrassment to hide criminality whether it is war crimes or corruption, or other forms of criminality. And it is for this reason why, for example, if you're somebody who's really worried about the environment, and you were you were aware of, say, an American company or indeed any other company, engaging in such in activities which were illegal. If you were that information that you received and handled to be classified information, you could be extradited. And that's really worrying for ordinary activists who are hoping to hold powerful corporations and powerful governments to account. And rated you want to add to that. You might have to unmute yourself again. If I no need to add to any of that it is intimidation pure and simple. If this precedent is set. No publisher, no journalist can live and do his, his or her job without worrying about being prosecuted by the United States wherever you live, Greenland and Antarctica, Australia wherever you live. They're the long arm of the US Justice Department can get you. Now, one thing I would add is simply that when Biden, President Biden was Vice President, he and Obama avoided doing this for precisely those reasons is so crassly. At cross, at cross purposes from this First Amendment of the Constitution United States. They talked about the New York Times problem. Well that meant that if they prosecuted Julie and they would have to prosecute the New York Times because the New York Times reported the same stuff. They held back. And so there is some hope, it seems to me, that we can persuade Biden hey you're right the first time you are right in not prosecuting or pursuing Julian Assange. Now to do that Biden has to face into what I call a national security state, who is dead set against letting Julian off. We'll see if Biden has the guts to do that. I'm not going to appeal battle. Well, that's just wait and see but I would not rule it out. Thanks. And our next question asks if someone can talk about why the matter topic that we haven't really covered in in our discussion so far in any depth, which is this case that took place that is currently taking place in Spain. And a Spanish security firm, which was hired by the Ecuadorian Embassy to provide protection for the embassy but instead chose to I'm just going to make sure everybody can see this both on the chat and elsewhere. Instead chose to surveil Julian, and the links that this company had with Zohar Lahav and other people who worked for the Las Vegas Sands Hotel. And it is very interesting how privileged conversations were spied upon and we know that in Daniel Ellsberg's case, the fact that his psychiatrist's office was broken into was one of the reasons the case was thrown out. But in Julian Assange's case, despite the fact that not only has there been a privileged or several years of privileged conversations spied upon. It is also very interesting that those seeking to prosecute them are indeed now likely to be shown to have tried to poison him. So the very idea that this case is going ahead seems like a complete mystery to everybody except perhaps the judge and I wondered if either Ray or Mohammed would like to comment on that question how can this case go ahead. Mohammed would you like to go first. Sure, I'll just refer to the legal side of this because this was raised right that there is a Spanish security firm UC global that was hired to protect the embassy and protect Julian Assange, and they were paid to do so. And it turns out that at some point they started to collect a second paycheck for the exact same activities, except in this case, well not for the exact same activities over the same period. A second paycheck and appears that paycheck was coming from the CIA, and to the point that although there were cameras in the embassy, the cameras were not meant to have microphones and they were replaced with with cameras that also have microphones and the tech people were told to lie to embassy staff about that and indeed to witnesses have told the Assange court, the will the extradition court here and they told the judge via statement that that indeed they did lie that they, they miced up the women's bathroom and the embassy when Assange started to go there with his lawyers to because they feared that they were being surveilled. They attached stickers to the windows so that laser mics could pierce the windows from across the building because Assange was using a noise machine because they thought that they might be, they thought they were being surveilled and so they were using a white noise machine when they were having discussions. So a tech person was sent into the embassy to then stick stickers to stop the vibrations of the windows so that the laser mics could pick up conversations, including lawyer client conversations, including strategies. I can point out that Daniel Ellsberg case fell apart in part, not because of cons on constitutional grounds but purely because of government malfeasance and the breaking in including the breaking in of his psychiatrist office looking for blackmail and smearing information that they could use against him. Now the judge basically determined that basically she said there's no real reason to believe that in a country such as the United States that the CIA would actually share whatever information they had with the Department of Justice that surely there would be a firewall because they didn't understand because the Department of Justice would be able to understand that there's there's information that they can't use privileged information for any trial against him. So setting aside what appears to be a rather naive position on the point of the judge, especially given the fact that they were violating, I mean all the various violations that we are aware of. And the fact that, well, what about the unfair advantage that the state gets to have when they've been listening to all his conversations for years, and they are then able to model a case against him, and also smear him based on where there's truths half truths and outright lies, based on what they're hearing, I mean that's another violation it's not just about evidence presented in court. It's about the fact that you're violating something that is meant to be sacrificed. And the judge found that there's no evidence that this would prejudice any trial that he would have in the United States and that surely US courts and US judges are best placed to make such a decision. So that was Judge Beretser's reasoning behind that. While you were speaking I could see Ray chuckling in the background. So I'm hoping that Ray will also find it amusing that in the judgment one of the things that the judge said was that it was a matter between states as to whether they objected, whether Ecuador for example objected to the fact that Julian was being spied upon and since Ecuador hadn't objected, surely there wasn't a problem. So over to you on that point Ray. Am I on music? You are. Please go ahead. Okay well I have to confess to a certain bias here against the British jurisprudence. My ancestors were victims of it in Ireland. I think this is a travesty of justice what we're seeing in London. Without, without Niels Milzer to shed a rather responsible and and creditable, incredible light on this would be all kind of all let's see, except for people like Mojavid, who were there, like you, Deepa, and who can inform the rest of us. The question is, how do we get this out to more people than are watching us right now. Now, that's the challenge. I had an email from Niels Milzer last night. And he was saying, look, you know, when you're talking about jumping bail or when you're talking about appealing the bail decision, realize what's going on here right don't forget. They're out to make an example of Julian Assange they're going to keep them in prison for as long as they possibly can probably until he died. Nielsen say probably until he died but there is COVID there, and he is in bad shape. So, so what I would like to simply say is that at some point we have to say, okay. Let's invoke the Noah principle. What's that. Well, I read like this. No more awards for predicting rain awards only for building arcs. Now what's the good news. There are people to admit to this people commuted committed to justice, which is based on truth, and you can't have peace, unless you have truth and then justice. So, what are we going to do about all this. Are we going to just ring our hands. Oh, it's a terrible attack. No, no, we're going to build an arc, or we're going to build several arcs. And will we succeed initially. No, we won't. What gives me what gives me hope is I have stones dictum on this I just want to read it to you, because Meltzer is very dismal and saying look right. Remember what's going on here they have all the power. It'll take as he put it the creator, him or herself to come down and make some changes well. All right, let's let's be realistic and what I would invoke now is I have stone. So, the only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you're going to lose. Because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday somebody who believes is you do wins. Now, that's the challenge for us. We can't expect immediate success. But the struggle is worth it. And someday, if we're faithful, you know, if we're not diverted by some sort of need for success. If we're faithful as Julian Assange has been, we're going to win. We're going to vote for you. We're going to invoke freedom of the press and the media. There are enough Americans that just are not educated about all what's going on who will come and join us if we do our homework and do our work in the street. So, let's build some arcs in all this and not just complain about things. Let's be realistic as Niels Meltzer is. Let's also be hopeful as if stone tries to persuade us to be. Thank you. We have a couple more questions and one of them is about the judge's refusal to allow Julian's extradition. And although we won't have time to take that question today, I will direct you, I'll put it in the chat and I'd be grateful if somebody could copy that over to YouTube and Twitter. A recording from an event yesterday where we had CIA whistleblower, John Kiriaku, we had the hacktivist and tech security expert, Lauri Love, and academic and one of Julian's old friends and colleagues, Dr. Suella Dreyfus, and they talked about that question and I'll put that in the chat so you can listen to it at some length. But our last question for tonight because we're very close to the time we said we would end is directed at you perhaps Ray, which is what is the importance of the world bolt seven documents release. And how do they differ from what Edward Snowden released and I wondered if you might like to say a few words about that. I'd be happy to. First off, Ed Snowden is a free man, to the extent one is free by being kept out of one's native country. He lives in Russia, and he was rescued by none other than Julian Assange. Not many people know that, but that's how it went down in Hong Kong. When Ed Snowden himself said, you know, they're going to get me the CIA station is right down, right down the path there right down the street. And they didn't get him. Why is it they didn't get him, because Julian Assange called in all his chits from people he knew in Southeast Asia and around Hong Kong. He came out on that airfield plane headed toward Cuba, but landing in Moscow. The reason that Ed Snowden is in Russia is because the State Department revoked his citizenship and his passport. And the good news is that just as Julian Assange has generated new life. Some of you may not know that at Snowden to has a newborn son. So Julian was responsible for that. When I saw Julian one time about five years ago I said Julian I admire a lot of things you've done, but none more than calling all those calling cars all those chits and getting it snowed and safely out of Hong Kong. And Julian is not one for to show a lot of motion but he got up from his couch and say yes, yes, we had to make sure that Ed didn't end up like Chelsea Manning. Now that's number one. The other part of the question I'm trying to remember now. That was Ed Snowden port. Yeah. Now vault seven is a multi billion. A billion with a B dollars worth of investment by the NSA the National Security Agency and the CIA to craft offensive cyber cyber tools. Yeah. Well, like the ability to take over a car, make it go 110 miles an hour and kill the driver. Oh, that's neat. Or like fixing up a TV so it looks like it's off and it's monitoring everything that goes on in your bedroom. Oh, will those reveal. Yeah, WikiLeaks reveal them how they didn't hack. They were in the receipt of a leak. Okay. Now, what happened. Well the New York Times thought that was interesting enough and so they published the business about the car and about the TV. But when WikiLeaks released what was called marble marble framework. That was a program that allowed the CIA to hack into a computer or server disguise who hacked in there and attribute it to somebody else. So what languages did they work in Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Persian, and Korean. Okay. And we know that we also know that it was used. It was used in in 2016. Think about that. Okay. Well, that was the that was the last straw. The word went out don't publish that New York Times never published that. And just 13 days later, the head and CIA Mike Pompeo got up and said, George is a demon Pompeo apparently believes in demons, but he's a demon. And he's a non state hostile intelligence service. And that's when they lean really hard on the Ecuadorians corrupt that the Ecuadorians that allowed their embassy to be invaded, and Julian to be extricated. That's really bad stuff. But that shows how much they hurt from these disclosures and how hell bent they are. I talked about billions and billions of dollars well that's that's that's verified by Bill Binney my friend, who's in our veteran intelligence professionals for sanity and who before he quit NSA worked on that program. Okay, so that's very damaging. Now, that was part of the calculus to shut Julian Assange up and the temporal coincidence where Pompeo got right up and said he's a he's a non state hostile intelligence service. And then the subsequent events explain themselves but you know it's really pretty pretty bad when Americans are blissfully most Americans are blissfully unaware of how all this went down and to until today. The New York Times has not published any information about marble framework, the one that lets the Russians, sorry, doesn't let the Russians, the one that lets the CIA, enter a computer or server, and I repeat, disguise who it was that entered. And they worked in these languages, including Russian and Chinese so think about what that might mean think about what ability that would give the CIA to blame oh I don't know maybe the Russians for hacking into oh I don't know things like the DNC emails. Well, for those of you don't know the head of CrowdStrike, who is commissioned to investigate all that has disavowed has has testified under oath that there is no evidence that any emails were hacked from the DNC, not by Russia, not by anybody else. So, but that you know the flavor of that charge still still hangs over Julian Assange that aha, what could be worse. What could be worse than being responsible for four years of Donald Trump. Hard to imagine anything worse than right okay so if you can blame Julian Assange for that. Whoa, so much the better. And if you can blame the Russians so much the better so Julian. Now, I would say this, Julian had the information. I repeat, he didn't hack it, neither did the Russians. He got it he was in receipt of a leak that's why they call it wiki leaks. Okay, now what was he to do. Was he to suppress that, because it was so close to the election. So that's not his job. His job is to get things out into the light of day. Now, could they have hurt Hillary Clinton. Well, I imagine so why, because what they showed was that Hillary and the DNC hopelessly prejudiced the chances of Bernie Sanders becoming the candidate. In the in the in the email. So, to a degree to the degree that wiki leaks published those things. And they were authentic. And they were really bad for Hillary Clinton. Well, one could make a reasonable argument that yeah, that hurt Hillary Clinton's But that's beside the point was it true was it accurate. And was it the receipt was it the result of receipt of a leak. And that's all those things are right. And so if we, if they get Julian massage and make an example of him. And that's not the rest of us because freedom of the press, as Neil Smilce has said many times will be down the tubes, if Julian is made an example of in the way they seem determined to do. On that note, I'd like to thank our panelists, Mohammed and Ray. Thank you very much for your time and for explaining so many things. Thank you very effectively to all of us. And I'd also like to remind you that this journalist and publisher is sitting in Belmast prison. Locked down 22 hours a day in a wing which had a COVID infestation some months ago. He even supposedly sent warm clothes in September and the prisons received them. But since then until now he has not been, those have not been delivered from the prison's basement. So Julian continues to prepare for the trial of his life, while being distracted of course, by the lack of warm clothing, the lack of decent heating, which, given that the UK has gone below zero several times in the last few weeks. It is just astonishing and abhorrent that anybody would be treated that way, leave alone a journalist and publisher who is innocent and whose case has been thrown out of court. So on that note, I remind you to link up with Denver Action to Free Assange and with other local groups which are campaigning to Free Assange. You have the broader Assange Defence campaign on their website. You can find loads of information about the case and that's one thing you can do. You don't have to be an expert, you don't have to be Raymond Gov and Mohamed El-Mazi to talk about this. You can talk to your friends and neighbours and bring them to the campaign. And a lot of these cases are not one, just in court, they're one by public opinion outside the court putting pressure on courts to do what's right, rather than the pressures that courts find themselves under from corrupt politicians who wish to find a particular outcome that suits them and doesn't embarrass them. So I urge you to speak up, speak now. This is really important no matter which course you're involved in, whistleblowers matter, publishers matter, journalists matter. And therefore, please join us in working to free Julian Assange. Thank you very much for listening. Goodbye. Thank you.