Open questions for Assange
Assange is back but not quite?
After all that he’s been through, Assange doesn’t seem to understand what most of you do: a global take over by a global government in the shadows.
He still doesn’t know or doesn’t expose that the CIA (like western and Israel’s intel agencies) were founded and lead by masons: Mike Pompeo was (and is) just another obedient mason puppet!
Could Wikileaks provide an objective viewpoint without taking into account the SSS Satanic Secret Societies' ongoing global coup, starting with the planned COVID lockdowns and lethal haccinations, the fake approval of the amendments to the WHO International Health Regulations, and continuing with a planned internet meltdown and huge financial crash?:
https://bit.ly/theplanrevealed
Still, Julian’s speech in Europe is worth reading or hearing (at bottom). It could be summed up in 5 lines:
“I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today because after years of incarceration I pleaded guilty to journalism.
I pleaded guilty to seeking information from a source, and I pleaded guilty to informing the public what that information was.
I was formally convicted, by a foreign power, for asking for, receiving, and publishing truthful information about that power while I was in Europe.
The fundamental issue is simple: Journalists should not be prosecuted for doing their jobs.
Journalism is not a crime; it is a pillar of a free and informed society.”
It’s not what Assange said, but what he didn’t.
It’s no coincidence that most dominant media failed to defend freedom of speech and freedom of the press for the cause of Assange.
Is it the same coincidence that Wikileaks has not a single entry on COVID ? Not even the leak of the New Zealand Government database proving COVID shots were lethal ?
Wiki means “quick”: why is Wikileaks so slow in certain topics?
Is Wikileaks censoring leaks?
Why didn’t it expose anything about the Obama administration? Nothing to hide in the illegal Guantanamo prison? Nothing to hide about Obama’s bombings? Nothing to hide in Obama’s birth certificate? Was there a secret plea bargain for Obama to freeze the case against Assange?
Why is Assange not exposing anything about the corrupt Zelensky government and NATO’s push to war with Russia?
Why isn’t Assange denouncing EU’s war on freespeech?
Is Assange living in an informational prison or is he just conveniently silencing inconvenient truths?
Julian’s case reactivated in 2017 when Wikileaks shared the CIA tool set for hacking all smart-TVs, smart-phones and EVs. Why did he negotiate his freedom after enduring so many years? For his kids? Why would the CIA offer a deal after so many years? Because Trump would finally pardon him?
Did Julian’s release through a plea bargain with the CIA involve becoming a CIA asset or ignoring certain taboo topics?
Does Julian’s deaffening silence on so many issues makes him an accomplice?
For example, in his speech, Assange failed to mention Reiner Fuellmich, a European, still in an European prison for doing exactly the same as Assange did, and that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which Assange is addressing, has done NOTHING about Reiner’s case or about so many European other civic and professional journalists, being illegally prosecuted or harassed by their governments.
And speaking of Europe, the same happens to Iurie Rosca in Moldava. Not to mention a long list of unsung truthers (conspiracy realists) all over the world:
Conclusion
ANYONE not denouncing the COVID coup and haccine genocide is part of the problem, to a higher or lower degree, either by commission or omission (even guilty ignorance). Even with a low degree of responsibility, Wikileaks and Julian Assange is no exception.
Assange and his family paid a high price. We are not here to judge. He went to jail because he bothered our enemies and we are grateful for that. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” but only in as much as he weakens my enemy and he strengthens our common good.
Deeds,
not words,
will show
how this
unfolds.
Julian Assange speech at Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
1 Oct 2024. Strasbourg. PACE hearing on Julian Assange's detention and conviction and their chilling effects on human rights:
“Mr. Chairman, esteemed members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ladies and gentlemen.
The transition from years of confinement in a maximum-security prison to standing here before the representatives of 46 nations and 700 million people is a profound and surreal shift.
The experience of isolation for years in a small cell is difficult to convey; it strips away one's sense of self, leaving only the raw essence of existence.
I am not yet fully equipped to speak about what I have endured - the relentless struggle to stay alive, both physically and mentally, nor can i speak yet about the deaths by hanging, murder, and medical neglect of my fellow prisoners.
I apologise in advance if my words falter or if my presentation lacks the polish you might expect in such a distinguished forum.
Isolation has taken its toll, which I am trying to unwind, and expressing myself in this setting is a challenge.
However, the gravity of this occasion and the weight of the issues at hand compel me to set aside my reservations and speak to you directly.
I have traveled a long way, literally and figuratively, to be before you today.
Before our discussion or answering any questions you might have, I wish to thank PACE for its 2020 resolution (2317), [ https://pace.coe.int/en/files/28508/html ], which stated that my imprisonment set a dangerous precedent for journalists and noted that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture called for my release.
I'm also grateful for PACE's 2021 statement [ https://pace.coe.int/en/news/8446/pace-general-rapporteur-expresses-se ] expressing concern over credible reports that US officials discussed my assassination, again calling for my prompt release.
And I commend the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee for commissioning a renowned rapporteur, Sunna Ævarsdóttir, to investigate the circumstances surrounding my detention and conviction and the consequent implications for human rights.
However, like so many of the efforts made in my case - whether they were from parliamentarians, presidents, prime ministers, the Pope, UN officials and diplomats, unions, legal and medical professionals, academics, activists, or citizens - none of them should have been necessary.
None of the statements, resolutions, reports, films, articles, events, fundraisers, protests, and letters over the last 14 years should have been necessary.
But all of them were necessary because without them I never would have seen the light of day.
This unprecedented global effort was needed because of the legal protections that did exist, many existed only on paper or were not effective in any remotely reasonable time frame.
I eventually chose freedom over unrealisable justice, after being detained for years and facing a 175 year sentence with no effective remedy. Justice for me is now precluded, as the US government insisted in writing into its plea agreement that I cannot file a case at the European Court of Human Rights or even a freedom of information act request over what it did to me as a result of its extradition request.
I want to be totally clear. I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today because after years of incarceration because I plead guilty to journalism. I plead guilty to seeking information from a source. I plead guilty to obtaining information from a source. And I plead guilty to informing the public what that information was. I did not plead guilty to anything else. I hope my testimony today can serve to highlight the weaknesses of the existing safeguards and to help those whose cases are less visible but who are equally vulnerable.
As I emerge from the dungeon of Belmarsh, the truth now seems less discernible, and I regret how much ground has been lost during that time period when expressing the truth has been undermined, attacked, weakened, and diminished.
I see more impunity, more secrecy, more retaliation for telling the truth and more self censorship. It is hard not to draw a line from the US government's prosecution of me - its crossing the rubicon by internationally criminalising journalism - to the chilled climate for freedom of expression now.
When I founded WikiLeaks, it was driven by a simple dream: to educate people about how the world works so that, through understanding, we might bring about something better.
Having a map of where we are lets us understand where we might go.
Knowledge empowers us to hold power to account and to demand justice where there is none.
We obtained and published truths about tens of thousands of hidden casualties of war and other unseen horrors, about programs of assassination, rendition, torture, and mass surveillance.
We revealed not just when and where these things happened but frequently the policies, the agreements, and structures behind them.
When we published Collateral Murder, the infamous gun camera footage of a US Apache helicopter crew eagerly blowing to pieces Iraqi journalists and their rescuers, the visual reality of modern warfare shocked the world.
But we also used interest in this video to direct people to the classified policies for when the US military could deploy lethal force in Iraq and how many civilians could be killed before gaining higher approval.
In fact, 40 years of my potential 175-year sentence was for obtaining and releasing these policies.
The practical political vision I was left with after being immersed in the world's dirty wars and secret operations is simple: Let us stop gagging, torturing, and killing each other for a change. Get these fundamentals right and other political, economic, and scientific processes will have space to take care of the rest.
WikiLeaks' work was deeply rooted in the principles that this Assembly stands for.
Journalism that elevated freedom of information and the public's right to know found its natural operational home in Europe.
I lived in Paris and we had formal corporate registrations in France and in Iceland. Our journalistic and technical staff were spread throughout Europe.
We published to the world from servers in based in France, Germany, and Norway.
But 14 years ago the United States military arrested one of our alleged whistleblowers, PFC Manning, a US intelligence analyst based in Iraq.
The US government concurrently launched an investigation against me and my colleagues.
The US government illicitly sent planes of agents to Iceland, paid bribes to an informer to steal our legal and journalistic work product, and without formal process pressured banks and financial services to block our subscriptions and freeze our accounts.
The UK government took part in some of this retribution. It admitted at the European Court of Human Rights that it had unlawfully spied on my UK lawyers during this time.
Ultimately this harassment was legally groundless. President Obama's Justice Department chose not to indict me, recognizing that no crime had been committed.
The United States had never before prosecuted a publisher for publishing or obtaining government information.
To do so would require a radical and ominous reinterpretation of the US Constitution.
In January 2017, Obama also commuted the sentence of Manning, who had been convicted of being one of my sources.
However, in February 2017, the landscape changed dramatically.
President Trump had been elected. He appointed two wolves in MAGA hats: Mike Pompeo, a Kansas congressman and former arms industry executive, as CIA Director, and William Barr, a former CIA officer, as US Attorney General.
By March 2017, WikiLeaks had exposed the CIA's infiltration of French political parties, its spying on French and German leaders, its spying on the European Central Bank, European economics ministries, and its standing orders to spy on French industry as a whole.
We revealed the CIA's vast production of malware and viruses, its subversion of supply chains, its subversion of antivirus software, cars, smart TVs and iPhones.
CIA Director Pompeo launched a campaign of retribution.
It is now a matter of public record that under Pompeo's explicit direction, the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and to assassinate me within the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and authorized going after my European colleagues, subjecting us to theft, hacking attacks, and the planting of false information.
My wife and my infant son were also targeted. A CIA asset was permanently assigned to track my wife and instructions were given to obtain DNA from my six month old son's nappy.
This is the testimony of more than 30 current and former US intelligence officials speaking to the US press, which has been additionally corroborated by records seized in a prosecution brought against some of the CIA agents involved.
The CIA's targeting of myself, my family and my associates through aggressive extrajudicial and extraterritorial means provides a rare insight into how powerful intelligence organisations engage in transnational repression. Such repressions are not unique. What is unique is that we know so much about this one due to numerous whistleblowers and to judicial investigations in Spain.
This Assembly is no stranger to extraterritorial abuses by the CIA.
PACE's groundbreaking report on CIA renditions in Europe exposed how the CIA operated secret detention centres and conducted unlawful renditions on European soil, violating human rights and international law.
In February this year, the alleged source of some of our CIA revelations, former CIA officer Joshua Schulte, was sentenced to forty years in prison under conditions of extreme isolation.
His windows are blacked out, and a white noise machine plays 24 hours a day over his door so that he cannot even shout through it.
These conditions are more severe than those found in Guantanamo Bay.
Transnational repression is also conducted by abusing legal processes.
The lack of effective safeguards against this means that Europe is vulnerable to having its mutual legal assistance and extradition treaties hijacked by foreign powers to go after dissenting voices in Europe.
In Mike Pompeo's memoirs, which I read in my prison cell, the former CIA Director bragged about how he pressured the US Attorney General to bring an extradition case against me in response to our publications about the CIA.
Indeed, acceding to Pompeo's efforts, the US Attorney General reopened the investigation against me that Obama had closed and re-arrested Manning, this time as a witness.
Manning was held in prison for over a year and fined a thousand dollars a day in a formal attempt to coerce her into providing secret testimony against me.
She ended up attempting to take her own life.
We usually think of attempts to force journalists to testify against their sources.
But Manning was now a source being forced to testify against their journalist.
By December 2017, CIA Director Pompeo had got his way, and the US government issued a warrant to the UK for my extradition.
The UK government kept the warrant secret from the public for two more years, while it, the US government, and the new president of Ecuador moved to shape the political, legal, and diplomatic ground for my arrest.
When powerful nations feel entitled to target individuals beyond their borders, those individuals do not stand a chance unless there are strong safeguards in place and a state willing to enforce them. Without them no individual has a hope of defending themselves against the vast resources that a state aggressor can deploy.
If the situation were not already bad enough in my case, the US government asserted a dangerous new global legal position. Only US citizens have free speech rights. Europeans and other nationalities do not have free speech rights. But the US claims its Espionage Act still applies to them regardless of where they are. So Europeans in Europe must obey US secrecy law with no defences at all as far as the US government is concerned. An American in Paris can talk about what the US government is up to - perhaps. But for a Frenchman in Paris, to do so is a crime without any defence and he may be extradited just like me.
Now that one foreign government has formally asserted that Europeans have no free speech rights, a dangerous precedent has been set.
Other powerful states will inevitably follow suit.
The war in Ukraine has already seen the criminalisation of journalists in Russia, but based on the precedent set in my extradition, there is nothing to stop Russia, or indeed any other state, from targeting European journalists, publishers, or even social media users, by claiming that their secrecy laws have been violated.
The rights of journalists and publishers within the European space are seriously threatened.
Transnational repression cannot become the norm here.
As one of the world's two great norm-setting institutions, PACE must act.
The criminalisation of newsgathering activities is a threat to investigative journalism everywhere.
I was formally convicted, by a foreign power, for asking for, receiving, and publishing truthful information about that power while I was in Europe.
The fundamental issue is simple: Journalists should not be prosecuted for doing their jobs.
Journalism is not a crime; it is a pillar of a free and informed society.
Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, if Europe is to have a future where the freedom to speak and the freedom to publish the truth are not privileges enjoyed by a few but rights guaranteed to all then it must act so that what has happened in my case never happens to anyone else.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to this assembly, to the conservatives, social democrats, liberals, leftists, greens, and independents - who have supported me throughout this ordeal and to the countless individuals who have advocated tirelessly for my release.
It is heartening to know that in a world often divided by ideology and interests, there remains a shared commitment to the protection of essential human liberties.
Freedom of expression and all that flows from it is at a dark crossroad. I fear that unless norm setting institutions like PACE wake up to the gravity of the situation it will be too late.
Let us all commit to doing our part to ensure that the light of freedom never dims, that the pursuit of truth will live on, and that the voices of the many are not silenced by the interests of the few."
This article took hours of research and writing, to save you that many hours, reading a few minutes.
0% A.I.
100% H.I. (human intelligence)
If you like it, please consider a paid subscription:
or please consider “buy me a coffee”:
or you could show your love in the tip jar =)
Solutions against the global tyranny
The PLAN revealed
October 1, 2022
Laws to exit planet prison
·
May 2, 2023
Solutions for "this" Democracy?
November 14, 2022
Rethinking science
December 19, 2023
Call to action
1. Please share to save lives: sharing is caring!
10 shares = waking up more people + SAVING MORE LIVES + author’s especial gratitude!
2. If you didn’t receive this by email, please subscribe:
Scientific Progress is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subs
3. Show your love in the tip jar =)
(1 dollar makes a difference)
4. Please consider a paid subscription:
5. Please consider commissioning an article for the topic of your preference:
Most important: let’s keep praying for each other and the conversion of our enemies!
"However, what appears distressingly obvious through Assange’s address is his apparent consideration of Europe as a hive of journalistic integrity, a nexus of free speech and censorial freedom. This appears misplaced, or perhaps it is a tugging forelock requirement to obtain the platform?"
'Nonetheless, it appears starkly at odds with the increased stranglehold being imposed on free speech everywhere in Europe, in addition to the range of draconian ESG-like measures'.
https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/free-speech-at-the-crossroads
Several questions do indeed emerge. The real questions we need to ask ourselves is whether we should bother at this juncture, whether we are merely circling the drain, transfixed by pointless distractions? Whatever and wherever the truth may lie, it appears beyond obvious that there are troubling and revealed inconsistencies in Assange's address. Time to move on then?
Good questions.