This is a red level emergency.

Journalist and Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, is now in failing health and has been a prisoner in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for six years even though there is absolutely no legitimate legal ground for his prosecution.

Sign and spread this petition so it can reach President Donald J. Trump to fully and unconditionally pardon Julian Assange in the interests of both justice and mercy.

Additionally, the Department of Justice is on record admitting that prosecuting Assange would also expose all American journalists and news outlets to similar criminal jeopardy.

We are calling on and asking President Trump to take a stand against the establishment medias and globalists assault on liberty and freedom of speech.

Read, sign, and share the full petition here.

Also:

Mass censorship of conservatives and libertarians is exploding. Youve already seen this with the demonetization and ultimate purge of Infowars and other alternative media outlets by mega-corporations working in tangent to stifle competition. But you are important in this fight. Your voice is important. Your free thought is important. Make no mistake, you are just as important as anyone in the Anti-American establishment.

You are our most important contributor.

Sign up for the free newsletter so they cant keep us from sending you critical information.

We need your support now more than ever. Donate to help support the Infowar.

Read the original:
Petition to Trump: Pardon Julian Assange - infowars.com

The mother of Julian Assange claims murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was the person behind the leaked DNC emails, not Russia.

In a tweet sent Thursday, Mrs. Christine Assange slammed the media for failing to adequately report on the corruption within the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton campaign during the 2016 election.

In the tweet, Mrs. Assange claims WikiLeaks release of the DNC emails helped expose Hillary Clintons numerous misdeeds, including the rigging of the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders. The release of the emails, she claims, put a target on her sons back.

Its the duty of media to inform citizens about corruption, she began.

A DNC Bernie supporter [Seth Rich] disgruntledwith rigging leaked docs proving corruption. What should Wikileaks should have done? Hold on to them till after the election to advantage Hillary?

You are shooting the messenger!

Mrs. Assange is referring to the fact that Seth Rich, a Bernie supporter, was likely frustrated with the blatant primary rigging against Bernie Sanders in 2016.

WikiLeaks has repeatedly denied that Russian hackers had anything to do with the leaked Clinton and Podesta emails.

In an interview with the Daily Mail in 2016, Wikileaks envoy Craig Murray told the newspaper that Seth Rich was frustrated with the DNC rigging the Democratic primaries against Sanders and decided to take matters into his own hands and leak the emails.

Neither of the leaks came from the Russians,Murray said. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.

The mass censorship of independent media is exploding. Our content is being silenced on social media and demonetized by mega-corporations who want to eliminate competition. But you can help us in this fight. Your freedom matters. Your voice matters. You have the power to fight those who seek to silence us.

You are our most important ally.

We need your support now. Donate to help us fight Big Brother censorship.

DONATE NOW

View post:
Julian Assange's Mother: Seth Rich Was DNC Leaker - Your News ...

It was one of those mistakes which often happen when you involve a government in your affairs but it wasnt Mr. Assange, it was the two women who managed to bed him who made that mistake

Ms. Ardin accompanied Ms. Wilen to the police station on August 20 [2010], playing a supporting role. Neither of them intended to press any criminal charges against Mr. Assange. They wanted to compel him to take an HIV test. Once they were at the police station and told their stories, the female police commissioner informed them that this all fell within rape law, and soon thereafter-that Mr. Assange was going to be arrested. Ms. Ardin and Ms. Wilen were upset when they heard this. Julian Assanges Penetration Agenda: Was it Rape in Stockholm? | Observer

As things played out however, Mr. Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden and only breaching bail in the U.K. Thats right, Sweden didnt file charges and in May, 2017, dropped the investigation which led to Assange needing bail in the first place.

None the less, to make sure he doesnt leave the country, the U.K. government has posted cops 24/7 outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London where Mr. Assange was granted asylum six years ago.

Maybe youre thinking, Wow, asylum from a bail charge? Breaching bail must be REALLY serious in the U.K.!Cypherpunks: Freedom a...Julian AssangeBest Price: $4.66Buy New $10.34(as of 07:45 EDT - Details)

Not so much. Even in these extremely unusual and unprecedented circumstances, the absolute best the UK legal machinery could possibly hope for from Mr. Assange is a five-thousand-pound fine and three months in the pokey. If the U.K. plays by its own rules.

In fact, this extremely unusual and unprecedented situation is so unusual and unprecedented that, incredibly, the United Nations got involved in what should be an insignificant bail case.

After looking into it however, the UN declared on Feb. 5, 2016, that the U.K. was unlawfully holding Mr. Assange under unlawful arbitrary detention, directed the UK machinery to release him immediately, and Sweden and U.K. to pay him compensation.

The U.K. refused to play by the rules.

In addition to asylum, Ecuador even granted Mr. Assange citizenship and diplomatic status. This should have freed him from Brit jurisdiction and allowed him to travel out of the U.K. under diplomatic immunity. Incredibly, however, the Brits again refuse to play by the rules.

And remember that 24/7 Brit surviellance? Well six plus years of it can get expensive.

According to information the BBC liberated from Scotland Yard, that would be 10,000 plus pounds per day expensive. Doing the math, as of July 31, 2018, it has cost the British taxpayers more than 22-million pounds (22,000,000) just short of 30-million dollars ($30,000,000) to keep Mr. Assange cooped-up in the Ecuadorian Embassy. So far.

This pretty much sums things up

It is embarrassing to see the UK government spending more on surveillance and detaining an uncharged political refugee [Mr. Assange] than on its investigation into the Iraq war, which killed hundreds of thousands [the Chilcot investigation she refers to cost only 10m] Kristinn Hrafnsson via. BBC News

And, as Ms. Hrafnsson points out, Mr. Assange is in fact a political refugee because thats your status if you manage to get someone to grant you asylum.

So all six years so far of sound, fury, and exorbitant expense is over bail on a sexual encounter that those involved didnt consider a crime and which the Swedish Government has not been able to prosecute.

Or is something else going on?The WikiLeaks Files: T...WikiLeaksBest Price: $2.99Buy New $7.91(as of 11:20 EDT - Details)

Of course, given governments congenital nature, a nagging and persistent thirty-million-dollar dumb screw-up by an inherently immoral and FUBAR organization isnt completely out of the question. As Beatles drummer Ringo Starr so delicately put it, Everything the government touches turns to crap.

OK, that might explain the Brits, but what were the Ecuadorians looking at when they not only granted Mr. Assange asylum but also citizenship and diplomatic status? And what was the U.N. looking at when it ruled that holding Mr. Assange was arbitrary and unlawful?

Whatever they were looking at, it probably wasnt breaching bail in the U.K.

Could they have instead been looking at the U.S. Justice Dept. and its secret indictment of Mr. Assange and Wikileaks, his news publishing consortium and the dire implications for freedom of the press? And/or were they looking at U.S. plans to extradite Mr. Assange? And maybe to prosecute him for treason even though, because hes not a U.S. citizen and hadnt even been in the U.S., they lack jurisdiction?

They could as well prosecute former Ecuadorian PresideNT Rafael Correa for giving him asylum or Bolivian PresideNT Evo Morales when, in an act of air piracy, the U.S. illegally forced his Presidential Plane to land because they suspected Ed Snowden might be on board after it departed from Moscow. Or, perhaps, indict Mr. Putin just for the heck of it.

Or maybe it was the death and assassination threats etc. from U.S. officials, politicos, and other U.S. Government related thugs they were all looking at.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. By its chronic behavior, its clear governments fear the truth and anyone who reveals it.

Its clear, for example, from the FBIs attempt to frame whistle-blower Tom Drake and put him away for 26 years by classifying an unclassified document after he released it. Luckily gonzo whistle-blower and journalist James Bamford had archived a copy before the FBI minions fraudulently stamped it Secret.

Etc.

So, the government reflex especially in the case of the U.S. Government is to classify and hide nearly everything, maybe even restroom paper work. So the first question isnt Who leaked this? or often more honestly Who told on us? but rather Why were you trying to hide it?

And the MilitaryIndustrialCongressional (MIC) division of The Deep State especially fears whistle-blowers who reveal truths which endanger their lucrative war agenda.When Google Met WikiLeaksJulian AssangeBest Price: $5.37Buy New $11.20(as of 02:15 EDT - Details)

Daniel Elsberg for example, who, by just barely managing to liberate The Pentagon Papers detailing U.S. failures in the Vietnam so-called war, was instrumental in ending that particular U.S. Government crime.

As a result, Nixons Sec. of State and war criminal in his own right Henry Kissinger, accurately laying-out clear MIC and deep-state thinking about those who endanger war profits, acknowledged Mr. Elsberg as The Most Dangerous Man In America.

And there was Bradley-Chelsea Manning who, by releasing this video of cold-blooded U.S. helicopter gun-ship Collateral Murder in Iraq and other secrets via Mr. Assange and Wikileaks endangered the second Iraq so-called war.

Not to mention endangering action against those seven countries in five years Libya, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq the Bush Jr. administration was planning to attack as follow-up.

So its clear governments are correct to be in mortal fear of folks who tell the truth about them. As noted historian Howard Zinn put it, Governments lie. If they told people the truth, they wouldnt last very long.

Information Officer Goebbels explained it like this:

the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State. Chief NAZI Information Officer Dr. Joseph P. Goebbels

But not to worry, the evidence strongly suggests current world leaders are quite able to understand and emulate Dr. Goebbels and his organization, particularly when attempting to deal with their mutual mortal enemy.

We can gage the level of official fear governments experience in the presence of that mortal enemy by the desperation and angst they exhibit when trying to deal with it, especially in the context of freedom of speech and the First Amendment.

Like this for example

Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. No Place to Hide: Edwa...Glenn GreenwaldBest Price: $3.36Buy New $4.70(as of 01:55 EDT - Details)The survival of our democracy depends on it. Senator Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) August 6, 2018

Senate Democrats Are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet Reason.com

Based on their six-year, $30,000,000 (thirty-million dollar) attempt to silence Mr. Assange, how fearful would you say they are? Are they perhaps terrified?

And that, my friend, begins to reveal the deeper meaning of Julian Assange.

What can you do to help?

HERE for updates, additions, comments, and corrections.

AND, Like, Tweet, and otherwise, pass this along!

The Best of L. Reichard White

Read the original here:
Julian Assange - LewRockwell

WIKILEAKS publisher Julian Assange is in extremely poor health and unless he is released from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, his condition may deteriorate to the point where his life is in jeopardy.

Australian lawyer Greg Barns, who is a member of Assanges legal team and also an adviser to WikiLeaks, told iTWire that Assange had not been able to access medical treatment for six years.

This was because the UK Government wont let him leave the Ecuadorean Embassy to see a doctor, according to Mr Barns in case he is arrested.

This is a cruel and inhumane stance from a government professing to be a liberal democracy, Barns said.

What is remarkable is that Julian remains so mentally alert and is able to function physically given the inevitable impact of six years detention without natural light or access to fresh air on a constant basis.

However if there is not a resolution to his case in other words, the UK guaranteeing that he will not be extradited to the US the reality is Julians health will deteriorate to the point where his life is in serious danger.

According to reports, Assange is still mentally alert and able to function physically, despite enduring six years of detention and without regular exposure to sunlight or fresh air.

iTWire also reported that the Australian journalists union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, has not commented on Assanges plight.

The news comes as Ecuador is being pressured to end Assanges asylum so he can be arrested by British police.

There are reports he may be extradited to the US where Robert Mueller is understood to be looking into Assange and Wikileaks as part of his Russian election investigation.

Norwegian police also said they were investigating the disappearance of the WikiLeaks founders associate Arjen Kamphuis, a cyber security expert.

We have started an investigation, police spokesman Tommy Bech told AFP, adding that so far they had no clue about the Dutch citizens whereabouts.

The police would not speculate about what may have happened to him, Bech said.

WikiLeaks tweeted on Kamphuiss strange disappearance, saying he had been missing since August 20 when he left his hotel in the northern Norwegian town of Bodo.

It added that Kamphuis had a ticket for a flight departing on August 22 from Trondheim, a city located more than 700 kilometres (435 miles) south of Bodo.

The train between the two takes (approximately) 10 hours, suggesting he disappeared either in Bodo, Trondheim or on the train, WikiLeaks said, triggering numerous conspiracy theories on Twitter.

Assange has been holed up at Ecuadors embassy in London since 2012 when he was granted political asylum as he feared extradition to the United States to face trial over WikiLeaks publication of secret US military documents and diplomatic cables in 2010.

See the original post here:
Julian Assange is in poor health, needs treatment, says ...

LONDON For Julian Assange, the worlds most famous whistleblower, freedom could be dangerous.

As his residency at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London enters its seventh year, the self-styled cyber revolutionary WikiLeaks founder and controversial publisher of some of the worlds most closely guarded official secrets is facing a pair of converging crises that have left his allies fearing for his wellbeing and his safety.

Inside the embassy, he is living an increasingly secluded existence, having been stripped of his phones, computers and visitor privileges after running afoul of the very government that gave him asylum. Outside the embassy, he is embroiled in the global political scandal surrounding Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, with questions about his role in that drama being raised by friends and foes alike.

In more ways than one, the very walls protecting Assange also appear to be closing in.

Life goes on outside the embassy, journalist Vaughan Smith, one of Assanges staunchest supporters and perhaps the last friend to visit him, told ABC News. But life doesnt go on inside.

In a series of interviews with his lawyers, supporters and friends, the people closest to Assange painted a bleak picture of his present and a grim outlook on his future, telling ABC News that he may both long for and dread the day he is forced out of the embassy.

"He's been effectively in solitary confinement," said Assanges lawyer Jennifer Robinson. Julian has always said he's very happy to face British justice but not at the expense of having to face American injustice.

Assanges supporters fear that, if his relationship with embassy officials further deteriorates, he could face a potentially devastating series of events that could ultimately land him in the hand of U.S. authorities.

Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigators have been probing WikiLeaks possible role in Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections, recently questioning at least five witnesses about their contacts with WikiLeaks. If his hosts at the Ecuadorian Embassy were to rescind his asylum and evict him, he faces immediate arrest by British authorities for failing to surrender on an arrest warrant related to a since-dropped rape investigation in Sweden. That arrest could pave the way for his potential extradition to the United States, should U.S. officials decide to charge him with a crime while he is in custody.

The question of whether WikiLeaks may have coordinated with Kremlin operatives has already has made some of his allies question their continued support.

If Julian Assange used WikiLeaks to willingly affect the outcome of the 2016 U.S. election on behalf of a foreign power, a onetime supporter, who asked to remain anonymous, told ABC News, then we are in a whole new ball game.

Assange has been confined to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012. Little is known about how Assange, who friends say is a "creature of the Internet," has managed his time there, especially since his electronic devices were taken away in March. Visitors have told ABC News he reads, uses a treadmill, and observes the street life below from a window.

Weekends in the embassy, they say, were the loneliest times for Assange. The embassy staff leaves on Fridays, so while the streets bustle with throngs of tourists swirling around the luxury store Harrods next door, Assange is left in the company of a guard with whom, Smith said, Assange doesnt share a common language.

When I saw him, I was concerned about his welfare, as a friend, said Smith, who owns Londons Frontline Club, a club for war journalists that once hosted WikiLeaks press conferences. He was feeling lonely. He scheduled our visit for late in the day on a Friday. It became clear why he wanted company.

On March 28, shortly after Smiths visit, Ecuadorian officials announced new restrictions on Assanges activities, accusing the 47-year-old Australian of violating a "written commitment made to the [Ecuadorian] government at the end of 2017 not to issue messages that might interfere with other states.

Assange appears to have angered his hosts when he publicly questioned via Twitter the British governments assessment that the Kremlin was behind the nerve agent attack on a former Russian intelligence officer in Salisbury earlier this year.

WikiLeaks, however, told a different story, tweeting on Aug. 16 that he has been gagged because of U.S. pressure on Ecuador.

Assanges only human contact outside of embassy staff since March has been with his lawyers, and they are concerned about his health and wellbeing.

He's now unable to receive visitors, doesn't have access to the Internet, no telephone calls, Robinson told ABC News. So he's effectively cut off from the outside world all together. The only people that are able to see him are his legal team, which is obviously a very limited interaction with the world.

Meanwhile, outside the walls of the embassy, Assange and the issue of WikiLeaks suspected dealings with Russian operatives remains of great interest to both U.S. investigators and WikiLeaks supporters.

Last month, Special Counsel Mueller indicted three Russian companies and a dozen Russian individuals, alleging that there were communications between Russian intelligence officers posing as a hacker persona, "Guccifer2.0," and an unnamed Organization-1 -- which sources identified as WikiLeaks -- discussing the politically-timed publication of hacked Democratic Party emails during the 2016 campaign.

Assange has denied having any involvement with Russian state actors, but his animosity toward former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was well known -- he publicly called her a sadistic sociopath during the campaign while Trump praised WikiLeaks five times on the campaign trail for publishing the stolen emails.

What Muellers indictment left unexplained for now was whether WikiLeaks and Assange knew Guccifer2.0 was not a Romanian hacker, as the persona claimed to be, and was really a group of Russian intelligence officers.

In questioning witnesses, Muellers agents have focused on inquiries on their contacts with Republican political strategist and former Trump adviser Roger Stone. Stone tweeted in 2016 that WikiLeaks had a surprise in store for Hillary Clinton a few days before WikiLeaks began posting thousands of hacked emails from her allies.

One witness FBI agents interviewed was Ted Malloch, an American professor living in the U.K., who was questioned March 28 as he arrived at Bostons Logan International Airport and asked about his ties to Stone, who wrote the forward to Mallochs recent book, and WikiLeaks. Agents also asked whether Malloch had visited the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. He told ABC News that he denied doing so.

The intensified focus by Mueller has coincided with Assanges supporters saying they've heard rumors that Ecuador whose president, Lenin Moreno, has derided Assange as a hacker will revoke his asylum imminently and hand him over to British police.

While no charges have ever been announced in the United States, two senior U.S. national security officials this month, when asked separately about Assange potentially facing charges for his past activities, confirmed that they still want to get their hands on Assange, though its unclear what that would entail.

The question of whether Assange and WikiLeaks may have colluded with Russian spies to tilt the American presidential election in favor of Trump has also opened up a rift among transparency and hacktivist circles and WikiLeaks insiders.

Some of his onetime supporters are questioning his denials. For others, Assanges reputation appears to already be beyond repair.

WikiLeaks simply is not what many of us thought it [once] was, a former WikiLeaks volunteer who worked directly with Assange told ABC News.

But others insist Assange would never be a stooge of the Kremlin, saying that he viewed whomever provided the hacked emails in 2016 as assets who could help him jostle Clintons seemingly clear path back into the White House.

I don't think he could work for anybody else. It would be completely out of character, Smith said of the Kremlin collusion theory. He did this [publishing the hacked Democratic emails] thinking Clinton would win and it would screw with her.

Assanges health is suffering, according to his lawyer, and his future is uncertain -- but his friend Smith doesn't believe that Assange will buckle under the pressure.

He is a toughie. He is built to do this sort of thing, Smith said. He is motivated by a belief that he is making a difference. From his perspective, he considers that hes doing the world a favor.

Editors note: This story has been updated to correct that Assange faces an arrest warrant, not charges, for failure to surrender and to add minor edits for clarity.

View original post here:
As his isolation intensifies, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange faces ...

Just a few months ago, most people had never heard of a Web site called WikiLeaks, or of its mysterious and eccentric founder, Julian Assange. But in that short period of time both have managed to rattle the worlds of journalism, diplomacy, and national security. WikiLeaks, which solicits and publishes secrets and suppressed material from whistleblowers around the world, has been under cyber attack from governments that want to shut it down. And Assange is currently under legal attack from the U.S. government which would like to charge him with espionage for publishing volumes of classified material from the Pentagon and the State Department.

"60 Minutes" and correspondent Steve Kroft spent two days with him in Great Britain where he is under house arrest, while fighting extradition to Sweden for questioning in two sexual assault cases, which he's called part of a smear campaign against him. In his most extensive television interview to date, Assange talked to us about his work, his vision and the prospects of facing criminal charges in the United States.

Julian Assange: I'm not yet a martyr.

Kroft: Right.

Assange: Let's keep it that way.

For now, Assange is holed up on a bucolic 600-acre English estate with an ankle bracelet, a 10 p.m. curfew, and a slow Internet connection. He declined to talk to us about the allegations in Sweden, on the advice of his attorney. He has not been charged and proclaims his innocence.

Kroft: Well, I suppose if you have to be under house arrest, there could be worse places.

Assange: Well it's a gilded cage. It's still a cage. But when you are forced to stay somewhere against your will, it does become something that you want to leave.

It's a radical departure from the lifestyle that the peripatetic Internet muckraker is used to - bounding from city to city, country to country, and regularly changing his cell phones, hair styles and general appearance, he says, to elude surveillance and avoid being killed, kidnapped or arrested.

And there are reasons for his paranoia: in the last four years, WikiLeaks has released information that played some role in deciding the 2007 election in Kenya, and fueling the anger that recently brought down the government in Tunisia. It has also divulged the membership rolls of a neo Nazi organization in Great Britain, and secret documents from the Church of Scientology. And that was before Assange began publishing U.S. secrets, provoking what he calls threatening statements from people close to power.

Kroft: What statements are you referring to?

Assange: The statements by the Vice President Biden saying, for instance that I was a high-tech terrorist. Sarah Palin calling to our organization to be dealt with like the Taliban, and be hunted down. There's calls either for my assassination or the assassination of my staff or for us to be kidnapped and renditioned back to the United States to be executed.

Kroft: Well as you know, we have a First Amendment and people can say whatever they want, including politicians. I don't think that many people in the United States took seriously the idea that you were a terrorist.

Assange: I would like to believe that. On the other hand the incitements to murder are a serious issue. And unfortunately there is a portion of the population that will believe in them and may carry them out.

2011 CBS. All rights reserved.

Read more here:
Julian Assange, The Man Behind WikiLeaks - CBS News

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange remains in solitary confinement inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he was granted asylum in 2012 against the threat of extradition to the United States for his publishing activities. In recent months, Ecuadors President Lenin Moreno, under pressure from the U.S. began threatening to evict this political refugee.

In response to this dire situation, people across the political spectrum began to form solidarity through #Unify4J, an online platform to organize a social media movement in support of Assange. Among those include prominent Trumps supporters. In the midst of Trump administrations draconian measures on immigrants and empowerment of white supremacist groups, the idea of working with Trumps key allies triggered reaction among the left. Recently, Classconscious.org, an outlet spearheading global civic action for Assanges freedom, scrutinized the idea of uniting with ultra right forces that back Trump and urged the movement to draw a line.

"The divisiveness that has grown among progressives around the advocacy of WikiLeaks brings extreme alarm. It weakens any kind of efforts to resist government and corporate oppression. Finding a way to overcome this force becomes now important, not only for Assanges freedom, but also for creating a viable movement for democracy."

Strife around the same issue arose from the former associate and early proponents of WikiLeaks. Barrett Brown, an award-winning journalist, previously imprisoned for charges relating to a Stratfor hack, has been one of the strong voices in support of the whistleblowing site. He described how he has long stood up for the organizations mission of transparency at great risk to himself, yet in recent months he became upset about what he perceived to be Assanges alliance with fascists and radical right supremacist groups.

Brown, who recently launched the project Pursuance, an open source software that allows individuals to share information and organize, has ramped up criticism toward Assange in his most vulnerable time. This created the conflict with the Courage Foundation, an organization that provides assistance for whistleblowers. Courage was co-founded by Assange and it has both WikiLeaks and Brown as beneficiaries. According to the article on the Daily Beast, three of Courages trustees reportedly instructed Courages respected director Naomi Colvin to cut off Brown as some kind of retaliation against his hostile remarks toward Assange. This led to the unfortunate resignation of Colvin, who was forced to walk out from the organization as a matter of principle for her opposition to exclude anyone based on political speech.

Birgitta Jnsdttir, a former member of Icelands Parliament, who now joined the board of Pursuance, responded to this alleged retaliation against Brown. Jnsdttir, who worked for WikiLeaks in the 2010 publication of the Collateral Murder video, recently tweeted her thoughts on her old colleague:

Its beyond sad to watch the hubris of one man being able to do so much damage and alienate people who risked everything for the cause. Wikileaks is now far closer to alt right groups then digital rights groups, by choice of its overlord. https://t.co/8bD2eYibH2

The divisiveness that has grown among progressives around the advocacy of WikiLeaks brings extreme alarm. It weakens any kind of efforts to resist government and corporate oppression. Finding a way to overcome this force becomes now important, not only for Assanges freedom, but also for creating a viable movement for democracy.

Innovation on the Internet

So, where does this divisiveness really come from? Since its mainstream recognition in 2010, WikiLeaks was accused of many things in different places and by various groups of people. WikiLeaks once tweeted:

In Russia, @JulianAssange is a MI6 agent;In US, a Russian agent;In Iran, a Mossad agent;In Saudi, an Iranian agent;In Libya, a CIA agent.

World wide establishments accuse those who expose them of being the enemy of the people.https://t.co/pj6AhyWzHo

The latest accusation became WikiLeaks, as an agent of fascism! Yet, the organization cannot be pigeonholed into these labels. Needless to say, none of these characterizations are accurate. WikiLeaks is a 100% publicly funded transnational journalistic organization that is not bound to any nation, corporation or political parties. This borderless existence comes to challenge our preconceived notion of journalism based on a model that operates within the confinement of the nation-state. WikiLeaks can be best looked at as an innovation of journalism on the Internet. Just as many inventions of the past, it brought disruption to the system and became controversial. Think of Johannes Gutenberg and his invention of the printing press. The spread of the printing press made it possible for people to read the Bible and democratization of knowledge enabled by his technology has brought the decline of Churchs authority.

In a similar way, Assange together with mathematicians, activists and journalists all around the world, invented a new form of journalism that is much more effective in revealing corruption of governments and institutions. With a pristine record of accuracy, it published more classified information than all media combined, exposing human right abuses, government spying, torture and war crimes on a scale that was unprecedented.

Birth of this global Fourth Estate was a game changer. It radically altered the media landscape. Just as scientists and inventors of the past who were imprisoned for their unconventional beliefs and discoveries, Assange has been persecuted for the breakthrough of this innovation. In the 17th century, Galileos thought that provided the evidence about the Earth revolving around the Sun was met with condemnation by the orthodoxy of the Church. In these contemporary times, WikiLeaks and its idea of transparency for the powerful seem to have become a heresy that is regarded as a punishable offense by the state.

Ethos of cypherpunks

Without understanding the essence of this new invention, peoples attitudes toward WikiLeaks swing back and forth. Whether it is capitalism or socialism, Democrats or Republicans, many demand WikiLeaks to demonstrate its allegiance to their political ideology and support their preferred candidate. They conflate the invention with the inventor, becoming obsessed with Assange.

One publication put him in a category of a leftist, while another turns him into a right wing. People speculate and get overly attached to Assanges political views. Ultimately, the opinion of this inventor does not and should not matter. In the same way that people dont have to know who invented electricity to have a light or a combustion engine to drive a car, everyone can benefit from this new journalism and use it to enrich society at large.

Yet, for those who still feel the need to know, Assanges thoughts are not shaped by a conventional political dichotomy of left and right. The ideas that conceived WikiLeaks originated from the philosophy of cypherpunks, an electronic mailing list that advocates privacy through the use of strong cryptography.

The motto of this loosely tied network that became active since the late 1980s is depicted with the expression cypherpunks write code. Adam Back, a cryptographer who was cited in Bitcoins white paper described it as a particular mindset to make changes through creating alternatives, rather than engaging in typical political efforts of petitions and protests. Back noted how pressuring politicians and promoting issues through the press tends to be slow and creates an uphill battle. He pointed out how instead of appealing to authority for change, people can simply deploy technology and help people do what they consider to be their legal right, and then society will later catch up to reflect these values.

Assange describing himself as part of cypherpunks that came from a different tradition than libertarians in California, articulated their unique efforts to balance power between the individual and the state. He said, By writing our own software and disseminating it far and wide we liberated cryptography, democratised it and spread it through the frontiers of the new internet. Being true to this ethos of cypherpunks, Assange deployed the technology of a secure drop box that runs on Tor, a free software that routes Internet traffic to enable the anonymous submission of material.

Liberating the First Amendment

The creation of WikiLeaks brought a major upgrade to the existing model of free speech. In the U.S. where tradition of freedom of speech began, in its inception, the First Amendment right was not able to fully embody its potent creative power. The idea of democracy, a government established under the rule of people, expressed in the preamble of the Constitution we the people remained an ideal. A move toward its fulfillment came from below by those who opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution that lacked the guarantee of individual liberties. The anti-federalists demanded that the Bill of Rights was necessary in order to restrict governmental power and their efforts made it possible for freedom of expression to be codified into law.

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Establishment of Bill of Rights as a vital part of checks and balances of power was revolutionary. Yet these rights that were meant to provide protection of individuals from governments overarching power were granted and regulated by central authority. In the structure of the constitutional republic, the unaccounted power of the Founding Fathers was kept unchecked. This created a loophole that makes the system vulnerable to commercial interests. Big business gained power by exploiting this weakness in security of the system and hijacked the government. Transnational corporations that have no allegiance to any country began using national governments and their system of representative democracy as instruments to control the populace and advance their own agendas.

With privatization of public airwaves and consolidation of media, an oligarchic class put the First Amendment under its proprietary control, restricting user access and setting terms and conditions for their use. In this dictatorial form of governance, journalists and editors are installed as an arbitrator of truth to manage and monitor public opinion. Through a creed of objectivity, they justify censoring any dissenting thoughts that challenge government official lines crafted by the corporate masters. This was evidenced by the 2013 documentary film Mediastan that exposed the former New York Times executive editor Bill Kellers cozy relationship with the U.S. government, the military and the CIA.

It was in this context of corporate dictatorship that Assange used cryptography as a non-violent democratic weapon to revolt. From its onset, the U.S. Constitution framed by white property owners with their imperfection manifested in slavery, genocide of natives and denial of womens rights corrupted the source code of equality written in the Declaration of Independence. Now, over 200 years later, Australian born computer programmer and journalist aimed to restore this original code of democracy through building a publishing platform online that is run on free software.

With the creation of WikiLeaks, Assange liberated the First Amendment from this archaic system of national governance. Significance of this invention is that it decentralized the function of free press, extending the First Amendment protection that has been exclusively preserved for the profession of journalists to ordinary people. Now, through this innovative anonymous submission system, anyone in the world with Internet connection can communicate with people around the globe about the fraud and wrongdoing of any governments or institutions. Without fear of retaliation, people can now transcend boundaries of nation-state to form association with one another and redress their grievances.

With scientific journalism at its core, this new media of the Internet replaced the source of legitimacy from the professions creed of objectivity to the actual documents themselves that are authenticated. Access to full achieves in a searchable format empowered everyday people all over the world. They can now engage in their own history as it is happening and use information to create social change.

Claiming creative power within

The U.S. government under Obama began a war against the First Amendment, trying to stop this WikiLeaks mission to bring free speech to the world. In this battle now being carried on by the new President Trump, Assange, as a lightning rod got inflamed with mainstream media hype of Russia Gate, demonizing the organizations role in the 2016 U.S. election. Without any solid evidence, Democrats throw around opinions, blaming Assange for the victory of Trump. They accuse the organization as collaborating with a fascist, when in fact the release of John Podesta emails exposed the Democratic establishment as actively aiding Trump candidacy with their strategy to elevate pied piper GOP candidates.

Some of Assanges former allies also got caught up with the heat that fixates public gaze on his personality. By expressing disdain toward Assanges flaws and what appeared to be their personal grudges against him that should be reconciled individually, they plunge themselves into the orgy of identity politics. While they are fully entitled to their opinion and criticism about his character, the timing and the way it was voiced when he cant respond is concerning. This only adds fuel to the establishments character assassination of this political prisoner, who was placed under surveillance cameras and intense media scrutiny to the level that no one in the world are made to endure.

"Democracy dies when we deny speech of those whom we oppose and our collective heart suffocates, with each individual not being able to speak freely. The tyranny triumphs the rule of law when we cant breathe through diverse opinions and perspectives to inspire one another to form a court of public opinion."

In facing the struggles of the racial injustice in the civil rights era, Martin Luther King Jr. recognized the similar force of divisiveness that could destroy the movement. In a sermon delivered in 1957 in Montgomery, Alabama, King identified it as hatred and described how it distorts the personality of the hater. He noted how this hatred has created something of a civil war inside people that divides them against one another. He reminded all about a redemptive power of love that could save our world and our civilization:

Love is creative, understanding goodwill for all men. It is the refusal to defeat any individual. When you rise to the level of love, of its great beauty and power, you seek only to defeat evil systems. Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system, you love, but you seek to defeat the system.

Just like cypherpunks who tap into the creative power within to bring change, this veteran leader of a civil rights movement knew that in order to abolish unjust laws of racism, we must first become that change by embodying universal brotherhood within ourselves. He understood that the blacks fight against their oppressors to claim their rights lock all into a perpetuating power struggle and how the levers of control that they use to try to defeat opponents will be used against them to deny their rights. For this, King insisted all to adopt the principle of love your enemies and lay down a sharp sword that cut through both ways.

Reign of the heart

This radical love that embraces even ones opponents is the heart that accepts all existence, giving all a right to express themselves equally. This heart that does not favor certain opinions as good and judge others as bad is the cornerstone of our democracy. The function of the First Amendment is to connect us to this silent pulse of the heart, placing it at a center of society to preserve the liberty of all people.

In the interview conducted by an award winning filmmaker John Pilger, renowned political analyst Noam Chomsky once said, If we dont believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we dont believe in it at all. Democracy dies when we deny speech of those whom we oppose and our collective heart suffocates, with each individual not being able to speak freely. The tyranny triumphs the rule of law when we cant breathe through diverse opinions and perspectives to inspire one another to form a court of public opinion.

WikiLeaks enabled the true function of the First Amendment. As a countenance of democracy, this revolutionary journalism protects people against suppression of speech by allowing all voices including views that are unpopular and marginalized. This can illuminate what liberals consider WikiLeaks troubling appearance of associating with Trump Jr. and speaking up for conspiracy theorists like a Infowar radio host Alex Jones, when he got censored by Silicon Valley tech giants.

"Assange is now seized in the embassy, deprived of sunlight and health care, being cut off from the outside world. As the fate of press freedom looks grim, cynicism and apathy spread with many of his colleagues in mainstream media turning away from his predicament and spectators lamenting this tragedy from afar."

In the article No, Julian Assange Is Not a Fascist, Gary Lord who writes political commentary has cut though the corporate media headlines that twist WikiLeaks professional contact with President Trumps son. By presenting their Twitter direct messages in a full context, he dismantled the widely held myth that Assange supports Trump and WikiLeaks helped his campaign. What is revealed in these exchanges was WikiLeaks asking Trumps son to help them publish his fathers tax returns (which was ignored), while refusing inquiries of both Cambridge Analytica and Trump Jr, regarding the upcoming publications. Lord summed up the nature of their interaction as WikiLeaks just doing the things that any good journalistic organization would do.

With the Trump cabinets aggressive pursuit to criminalize journalism, Assange is now seized in the embassy, deprived of sunlight and health care, being cut off from the outside world. As the fate of press freedom looks grim, cynicism and apathy spread with many of his colleagues in mainstream media turning away from his predicament and spectators lamenting this tragedy from afar. The fact is, it is not Assange who has created damage and alienated people as critics say. Rather, it is our lack of understanding of true meaning of free speech that brings damage to efforts of those who risked everything for democracy and has condemned Assange to profound solitude.

Efforts to free Julian Assange challenges us all to uphold this right to free speech, with moral courage to love our enemies. When politics wins, democracy loses. Only through our united front built upon our feeling of truth, can we bring the reign of the heart that can dismantle the levers of control and realize universal ideals that all men and women are created equal.

Link:
Why Democracy Needs Solidarity for Julian Assange's Freedom

The internet is buzzing with theories after Wikileaks Founder Julian Assanges mother, Christine Assange, tweeted and then deleted what many believe to be a suggestion that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich leaked docs proving corruption.

In response to the question why did Julian publish damning docs against Hillary at such a crucial time which gave Humpty Dumpty Trump the upper hand? Christine Assange replied Its the duty of media to inform citizens about corruption, adding a #DNC #Bernie supporter disgruntled with rigging leaked docs proving corruption.

What should Wikileaks should have done? Hold on to them till after the election to advantage #Hillary? she continued, adding You are shooting the messenger!

Many have pointed out that Mrs. Assanges the description fits that of Seth Rich, a Bernie Sanders supporter and DNC IT staffer who was slain on his way home from a local bar on July 10, 2016, five days after a forensics analysis indicated that the DNC emails were copied locally which was the same day Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0 claims to have haced the DNC, per the Washington Post.

12 days after Richs murder, on July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released thousands of emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee revealing that Bernie Sanders campaign was undermined when the DNC and the Clinton campaign colluded to share questions before a debate.

Of note, cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike reported on June 14, 2016 that Russia had infiltrated the DNC, after the DNC reported a suspected breach in April of that year. The DNC has received criticism for not allowing the FBI to analyze their servers for hacking, relying only on the Crowdstrike analysis performed by anti-Putin Russian expat a senior fellow on the very anti-Russia Atlantic Council.

Christine Assanges supposed admission caused many on Twitter to note that her son, Julian Assange, heavily implied that Rich was the leaker in an August, 2016 interview on Dutch television when he brought up Assange in the context of WikiLeaks whistleblowers, and then nodded his head when asked directly if Rich was a source.

Excerpt from:
Assanges Mother Claims DNC Staffer Leaked Data To Wikileaks ...

Photograph Source Jeanne Menjoulet | CC BY 2.0

Julian Assange is the Australian founder of Wikileaksa website dedicated to the publics right to know what governments and other powerful organizations are doing. Wikileaks pursues this goal by posting revelatory documents, often acquired unofficially, that bring to light the criminal behavior that results in wars and other man-made disasters. Because Wikileaks very existence encourages leaks, government officials fear the website, and particularly dislike Julian Assange.

Essentially, Wikileaks functions as a wholesale supplier of evidence. Having identified alleged official misconduct, Wikileaks seeks to acquire and make public overwhelming amounts of evidencesometimes hundreds of thousands of documents at a timewhich journalists and other interested parties can draw upon. And since the individuals and organizations being investigated are ones ultimately responsible to the public, such a role as wholesale supplier of evidence can be seen as a public service.

Unfortunately, that is not how most government officials see the situation. They assert that government cannot be successful unless aspects of its behavior are conducted in secret. The fact that those aspects in question thereby lose any accountable connection to the public is discounted. Theassumption here is that most citizens simply trust their governments to act in their interests, including when they act clandestinely. Historically, such trust is dangerously naive. Often government officials, even the democratic ones, feel no obligation to their citizens in general, but rather only to special interests.

One reason for this is that large and bureaucratic institutions that last for any length of time have the tendency to become stand-alone institutionsones with their own self-referencing cultures, loyalty to which comes to override any responsibility to outside groups other than those with particular shared interests. In other words, long-lasting institutions/bureaucracies take on a life of their own.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that many governments look upon Wikileaks as a threat to institutional well-being. And so, in an effort to cripple Wikileaks and have their revenge on Assange, the United States and the United Kingdom (UK), with the cooperation of Sweden, first sought to frame Assange (2010) on a sexual assault charge. This having failed, Assange was still left liable for jumping bail in the UK in order to avoid seizure and deportation to the U.S., where he would certainly be put on trial for revealing secrets. He escaped to the Ecuadorian embassy in London (2012), where he was given asylum. As of this writing, he is still there. However, a recent change in government in Quito has led to discussions between Ecuador and the UK that may well lead to Assanges eviction from the embassy.

The Ideals of Journalism

Some of the anger over Assanges fate has been directed at the journalistic profession which he has sought to serve. After all, Assange has ardently supported the notions of free speech, free press and the publics right to know. Nonetheless, as the documentary filmmaker John Pilger, a supporter of Assange, has noted, There has been no pressure [in support of Assange] from media in the United States, Britain, Australia or pretty much anywhere except in [media] programs outside the mainstream. The persecution of this man has been something that should horrify all free-thinking people. He is quite right. Unfortunately, there never have been many brave free-thinkers about, so no one should be surprised at Assanges poor prospects.

This brings up the difference between the ideals of the journalistic profession and the reality within which it operates. There is a model of journalism that presents it as a pillar of democracy. The journalist is a tough and persistent person who digs up facts, asks hard questions and explains the truth to his or her readers/viewers. Few seem to have noticed that, to the extent that this picture is accurate, the ideal model has alienated those readers/viewers who cannot tell the difference between the truth and their own opinions. Recently, this alienation has opened the entire media industry to the charge that it is really the enemy of the people because it peddles fake newsthat is, news that belies ones opinions.

To bring the idealistic journalist in line with real public expectations, editors put pressure on media workers to compromise their professional ideals. The result is most often manipulated reports aimed at fitting the particular outlook of the particular media operations target audience. Thus, it is simply wrong to think that, on the average, those who investigate, do research, write about things, and report through the various media are any braver or, ultimately, any more principled than the rest of the population. As Julien Benda showed us in his 1928 book The Betrayal of the Intellectuals, while it is in fact the job of those who research and report to remain independent of the ideologies and biases of both their community and their government, the truth is that most often these people end up serving power. This is particularly the case when there is an atmosphere of patriotic fervor, or just plain pressure from sources that can hurt ones career. At that point you will find that bravery does exist but it is the exception and not the ruleand the brave will, more often than not, stand alone.

That is what is happening in the case of Julian Assange. Many American news outlets are willing to selectively use the documented evidence made available by Wikileaks. To do so is to draw on what the website has placed in the public domain. But they will not stand up and publicly defend the whistleblower who makes the information public. I imagine publishers, editors, and media moguls, and the vast majority of those they employ, just dont have the courage to support the individual who breaks some unprincipled law or regulation designed to enforce silence in relation to official crimes and hypocrisy.

A Shared Problem

The United States is certainly not the only country facing this dilemma. To one extent or another this is a shared problem in all those lands claiming to have a free press. For example, a similar problem has long existed in Israel. Here one finds a whole ethnicity whose journalists are open to persecution.

Take the case of Omar Nazzal, a member of the board of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate. In a 10 August 2016 report appearing in the on-line blog +972, and entitled Israeli journalists silent as their Palestinian colleagues are jailed, we are told that Nazzal was taken into custody by Israeli forces in April 2016, without charges. Like Assange, there has been an attempt, after the fact, to claim that Nazzal is a criminal. The Shin Bet, one of those Israeli security forces that only the naive or venal take at face value, claims that he is a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which they consider to be a terrorist organization. No proof of this charge has been publicly presented (Shin Bet claims the proof is secret) and Nazzal denies any affiliation. As it turns out, the real reason he was arrested somewhat parallels Assanges activity. At the time of his seizure, Nazzal was on his way to Sarajevo for a meeting of the European Federation of Journalists. No doubt, the Israelis did not want him telling true, documentable, stories to an organization of European journalists. Most Israeli Jewish journalists, like their American counterparts, remain silent. So do their respective publics.

One might ask just how seriously the public wants a media that tells them the truth. The most watched cable news channel in the U.S. is Fox News, a media ally of Donald Trump that has no demonstrable interest in objective facts.It is more likely that Americans (and others) chose their news outlets on the basis of which one most often tells them what they want to hearin other words, the search for accurate reporting is really driven by a desire for confirmation bias.

Under these circumstances it is easy to understand why afor-profit media industry need not be beholden to the general citizenry or any ideal of supplying fact-based news. This situation puts truth tellers like Assange, and in the case of Israel, Omar Nazzal, in a bad position. They will have their defenders but they will be outside the mainstreambecause truth itself is also outside the mainstream. That is their predicament, and ours as well.

Excerpt from:
Julian Assange and the Fate of Journalism - counterpunch.org

By Paul Mitchell 18 August 2018

Supporters of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange took part in a demonstration outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London Thursday to mark six years since he sought refuge there and was granted political asylum.

Chanting slogans including Protect all journalists, free Assange! protesters held placards reading, Free Julian Assange, Free Press! Free Assange! No Internet Censorship and Bring Julian Home.

Ecuadorian President Lenn Moreno, under pressure from the United States with which he seeks closer relations and investment, has stepped up moves to eject Assange from the embassy.

If Assange is forced out, he faces immediate arrest by waiting British police and imprisonment on minor bail infringement charges relating to a case dropped by the Swedish authorities over a year ago. Assange fears that if detained by the British authorities he will be extradited to the US.

The WikiLeaks editor is now the subject of the investigation headed by US Special Counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election.

Following his indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers last month, Mueller is now seeking to prove that WikiLeaks was part of a conspiracy to hack and publish emails sent by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clintons campaign chair, John Podesta.

Assange continues to face a secret grand jury trial in Virginia, home of the Pentagon and CIA, on multiple charges under the 1917 Espionage Act. These moves are aimed at denying free speech to Assange and WikiLeaks, who over the last decade have exposed the war crimes, coup plots and mass surveillance carried out by the US government and its allies.

World Socialist Web Site reporters spoke to some of those at the protest. Mr. Tan from Singapore, who is holidaying in the UK, said he fully supported Assange and was pleased to see people still defending him.

I think Julian Assange has done more than anyone this century to promote freedom of speech. In my own country, Singapore, we have been a so-called democratic state since independence [in 1965 from Britain] but it has been the same party in power, the Peoples Action Party [PAP], ever since.

For a lot of that time the same man, Lee Kuan Yew, was the prime minister. So you could say Singapore is a one-party state. And even though it has absolute power the PAP uses the courts and all sorts of underhand ways to stop opposition parties growing.

We are ranked as one of the worst countries in the world in terms of press freedom. And it is getting worse, with more and more restrictive laws.

Although the government says it does not censor political opinion on the internet, nearly all the online news channels are owned by the big newspaper companies which are tightly controlled or censor themselves. I will have to look at the World Socialist Web Site when I get back home.

The government says we have freedom of speech. They say you can go to Speakers Corner in Hong Lim Park and say what you want. But you have to register with the park authorities, and everywhere else all demonstrations have to get a permit from the police, who can stop them if they decide it has political purposes. Foreigners, and remember we have hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers, are not allowed to take part in political activity.

In Singapore, people can be held in a detention indefinitely without being charged. The government can also spy on you when it wants. So you can see why I am sympathetic to Julian Assange and the way he revealed what was going on.

Another protester, Khoo, cited the case of the young internet blogger, Amos Yee, and said he flew to the US and was given asylum [in 2016] after being jailed for his political beliefs. He criticised religion, which is more or less forbidden in Singapore.

I agree with you that increasing repression is linked to increasing inequality. I had not thought about it like that before. Singapore is the richest country in Asia, but I think it is also the most unequal. There were lots of stories in the press last month about how the top billionaires increased their wealth by 11 percent last year. It is absolutely incredible, especially when you think the government has been talking about inequality being the biggest threat to Singapore and made it a top priority.

Saleh and Ameena are young Saudi nationals. Saleh spoke to the WSWS, while Ameena wanted to hold a Socialist Equality Party placard reading, Defend Assange.

Saleh said, I feel strongly about the right to freedom of speech. Assange is a prisoner here, getting lower treatment than a prisoner. All he has done is show the truth to the people of the world, with WikiLeaks.

Freedom of speech is very important: the right to say what you think is as basic as the right to have food or water.

There is no freedom of speech where I come from. When I am here, I feel free to be myself and talk about what I want. When I am back home, I have to behave like an actor.

When there is no free speech, it means that those in power can do what they like and can also lie. The attacks on Iraq, Syria, Libya were all based on lies.

The Islamists also are against free speech, in the same way as the UK and US governments. Maybe that is why they are on the same side in Syria.

With more freedom of speech comes more social justice and less poverty. In Saudi we have a lot of poverty, it is hidden and it is controlled No one can talk about it freely.

The author also recommends:

Socialist Equality Party leader Julie Hyland speaks at London vigil to demand freedom for Julian Assange [ 20 June 2018 ]

Protesters at Ecuador embassy vigil in London demand freedom for Julian Assange [21 June 2018]

Google is blocking the World Socialist Web Site from search results.

To fight this blacklisting:

Visit link:
London: Ecuador embassy vigil marks six years since Julian ...