 My name is Sam Hussein, I'm an independent journalist. I want to give a little bit of the political context of this. There's a truck going around with the pictures of the collateral murder video. Now, that wasn't just a hit on civilians. Who did it hit? Press. This has effectively been a war against truth-tellers from the very beginning. And why do you do that? You do that because you don't want the information to get out. So if the Iraqi journalists on the ground are getting truths out that you might not like, that's not good from US establishment's point of view. And Reuters did what? They were Reuters reporters, Tamrim and staff and so on. Reuters did what? Said, give us information. Give us information. Give us information. Pentagon wouldn't give information. We only know information, of course, because Chelsea Manning released it to WikiLeaks. They've gone after Chelsea Manning, and they've been going after Julian Assange. The message is clear. If you're a truth-teller, we're going to come after you. Last night at the concert, I was explaining part of this to somebody, and they were like, wow, that was such another time ago, like the Iraq war's ancient history or something. Well, that's the whole point, because what's WikiLeaks had to do for all of these years? They'd had to play defense. When snorled in all of these litigations and the persecution of Assange and so on, the threat that WikiLeaks posed was a global, independent media outlet that was well-funded. What was the first thing they did to go after WikiLeaks? They cut off their funding. They cut off their funding from MasterCard and Visa. People were pouring contributions in to WikiLeaks because they want the truth, and they saw that this was a global mechanism to get at some of that truth. So they went after that first. Who did that? Joe Lieberman. This has been a bipartisan effort from the very beginning. Part of the value of WikiLeaks is that it shows the duplicity of the duopoly. What do we have now? We have partisan hackery disguised as journalism. Trump is bad. Trump is great. Trump is bad. Biden's great. Biden's bad. That's what passes for a huge portion of journalism now. WikiLeaks shredded through that. Why? Because it went after the main dominant apparatus of the US establishment, its military-making capacity, economic issues, and so on. That's the last thing they want. It had profound effects on so many things. After the Iraq War, it helped spark the Arab uprisings. Now, what did the establishment do with that? The US media and the Gulf media, at that point, a declining Al Jazeera and increasingly bad Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, twisted the Arab uprisings so that they didn't go after the monarchies that the US is allied with or client states. It went after what? The nationalist regimes that the US didn't like, that didn't always toe the US line, Syria and Libya. Now, WikiLeaks, it helped spark the Arab uprisings, but it couldn't cover them. It didn't have the capacity yet. It's threatened to have the capacity, but it didn't. Other major media twisted the coverage of the Arab uprisings so that you had what? Effectively, civil wars and failed states in the US's geopolitical rivals. Entities that the US establishment didn't want, Syria, Libya, that's why you had bloodbaths and now slave markets, et cetera, et cetera, and Libya and in Syria. So we are effectively prisoners, too. It's not just Julian. We are prisoners because we're not getting the information that we need. So Julian's imprisonment is deeply tied to our own. It's not just simply those Iraqi journalists who are targeted. It's not just simply Julian. It's the possibility of us getting truth about every issue under the sun. From war in Ukraine, to the war in Yemen, to economic policy, environmental policy, pandemic policy, and so on. They went after the whistleblowers, the people who inhabit these buildings, that even though they're on the payroll, some of them say, no, I'm going to take a risk of going to jail, like Chelsea Manning. I know the case of Catherine Gunn very well. She worked for GCHQ, the British equivalent of the NSA. Just as the US was about to invade Iraq, she released a document. It got into the observer, and the document showed that the US was spying on member states of the UN Security Council, in effect, trying to get information on diplomats at the UN. We have Joe Laurier here, who covered that, I'm sure, now with Consortium News. And what did they do? This story, despite my best efforts and other people's best effort, this was called by Daniel Ellsberg, the greatest leak of all time. She leaked in time, hopefully, to prevent a war. The last 20 years could have been radically different if that leak had been elevated by a substantial media mechanism. We don't have that. WikiLeaks threatened to do that. Her leak actually did end up having an incredibly powerful effect. The US, during the buildup of the Iraq War, continuously said, we're going to get two resolutions. We're going to get a second UN Security Council resolution. They never did. Why? Because when she disclosed the document, even though that document didn't get substantial play in the United States, it got play in those member countries, Mexico, Chile, Guinea, and so on. So they wouldn't go along with a second UN Security Council resolution. So they never got an actual legal authority, and that caused serious legal problems for them, especially in England. I think that's a sense of what's at stake here. It's every issue. It's the core of the First Amendment. There's a universality to it. That highlights why I think the crucialness of what WikiLeaks can do and should do and the long-term ramifications for us all of the prosecution of this time. Thanks.