Why has “Our ABC” published an unaccredited hit piece on Assange?
Dear ABC
Your recent VIDEO: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a divisive figure
Australian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a polarising figure. We explore the backstory to his complicated legacy. Is shockingly flawed in almost every aspect.
Who is We ? Why is no one is attributed to this, not even the narrator ?
This is the laziest piece of factually incorrect journalism I have ever seen. It is a cruel and pathetic hit piece, filled with repetition, discredited quotes and false information.
Perhaps if We and/or Narrator did the tiniest scrap of investigative journalism this low grade collection of discredited quotes, partial quotes and skewed propaganda would never have happened. How did the ABC editorial staff allow this to pass through to publication ?
I have tried to keep my response to this as brief as possible.
The corrections are in chronological order of the video.
As there is much to unpack, I’ve included verifiable links throughout.
Narrator says The last four years in a British jail, when in fact Julian Assange has been in Belmarsh Prison (UKs highest security prison) since 11–4–2019. That is just over four years and ten months, most of it spent in solitary confinement.
Narrator says the Australian hacker with a signature silver coif. That is as absurd as defining you by your first work experience job when you were a teenager.
As a teenager Julian Assange and his friends hacked NASA, this was not to do damage but to test their skills at competing with some of the smartest brains on earth. In response Julian was offered computer coding and security jobs in various sectors, most of which he refused because he would not compromise his integrity. He did, however, take up a leading role in exposing two major paedophile rings with the Victorian and Australian Federal Police.
“Assange’s counsel, Grace Morgan, told the Victorian County Court that, “in 1993, when Mr Assange was in his early 20s, he provided assistance to investigators from the Victoria Police Child Exploitation Unit”.
“My client assisted in relation to two investigations,” she said. “His role was limited to providing technical advice and support, to assist in the prosecution of persons suspected of publishing and distributing child pornography on the internet. Mr Assange’s participation was concluded in the mid-90s. He is not aware of the ultimate outcomes of the operations but understands his technical expertise was of value to the investigations. Mr Assange received no personal benefit from his contribution, and was pleased to be in a position to assist.” Link.
Julian Assange built WikiLeaks with the same impeccable integrity he had as a youth. WikiLeaks is the only major media outlet with a 100% reporting accuracy record.
Julian Assange has threatened the multi trillion dollar military industrial complex by exposing the war crimes and war profiteering using the offenders’ own words and actions by publishing their leaked documents. And he has not been a hacker since his teenage youth, and even then he did no damage.
Narrator (or We) clumsily and manipulatively edit Julia Gillard mid sentence:
Gillard: I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website.
The full sentence of the partial quote from Julia Gillard is I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website and an illegal thing to do (see video link)
It is also worth noting that Assange’s actions were proven to be legal, Gillard is yet to apologise.
“Ms Gillard should also state very clearly that she and her Government fully accept the findings of the Australian Federal Police that indicate that there is no evidence that the release of diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks breaks any Australian law. This would go some way to countering her previous statements that Mr Assange and WikiLeaks had acted in some way illegally in releasing the cables.” Link
Narrator says: The video WikiLeaks released is highly produced, edited, subtitled, supplemented with eyewitness reports. And beginning with a George Orwell quote, it’s clearly meant to illustrate a political point of view and not merely to inform. Assange claims to have decrypted and published the video in the interest of transparency.
Multiple versions of Collateral Murder have been released, including the full 38:04 version. The initial release of the 12:46 version conveys the mass slaughter of civilians. When the MSM TV NEWS presented this story, they only included a selection of snippets, certainly no more than 3 minutes. To suggest editing out sections of the initial video release is somehow unethical, absurd. Watch the full version and tell us what should have been included.
The George Orwell quote is an analogy of what we are about to see. Poorly researched hit pieces such as this one is proof of that analogy.
The 2:46 intro with eyewitness quotes is to provide the viewer with context in preparation for watching US military murder and maim journalists, then good samaritans and their children
What is the political point ? To not kill civilians then cover it up ?
Subtitles for all videos has become standard procedure in recent years. How is that somehow iniquitous ? I’ve always thought subtitles were quite an inclusive thing.
Narrator says: But here’s the thing, WikiLeaks made no attempt to redact any of the names of Afghan civilians, putting those who helped coalition forces in danger. It was an issue that drove a wedge between Assange and his WikiLeaks colleagues.
WikiLeaks made every attempt to redact everything they published, as is evidenced by the US Military statements at Private Manning’s trial
Manning Trial Witness Says Zero Deaths Linked To Names In Afghan War Diary Release
Ret. Brig. Gen. Robert Carr testified that his task force identified more than 900 Afghan names as potentially at risk in the 70,000-plus leaked files.
Carr reported there hadn’t been a “single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.” Gates wrote. “. . . the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure.” And none since.
Manning leak did not result in deaths by enemy forces, court hears.
Former Défense Secretary Robert Gates said to US Congress that the reactions to the leaks were “significantly overwrought.” He went on to say: “Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.’’ Cablegate (diplomatic leaks)
“However, the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure.” Afghan War Logs
Gates: Leaked documents don’t reveal key intel.
It is also worth noting that with Mark Davis’ revelations, it was Assange who meticulously redacted all the names from the media releases, not the New York Times, nor The Guardian.
Also of note is that it was Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding that initially issued the passphrase to the cache of war logs etc in their book WIKILEAKS: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy, not Assange.
Daniel Domscheit-Berg says: We had this really complicated situation with our three collaborating newspapers, The New York Times, Guardian and Der Spiegel, where we found out he made promises about redacting part of that publication, but no work was put into these redactions at all.
This is an absurd and discretied quote from a proven liar, as evidenced here:
Assange maintained “WikiLeaks does not record or retain source identifying information” and suggested Domscheit-Berg has ties to U.S. and Israeli intelligence. PBS Frontline
Domscheit-Berg: stole the files by smuggling them out on a thumbdrive. The fact he was able to take previously unpublished, highly sensitive files is testament to Assange’s integrity, as he hadn’t published them.
For Assange to redact so many files, he developed a dictionary software that could fade all words of a file that are listed in the dictionary. This would leave all the proper nouns highlighted, read around the proper noun and act accordingly.
“Julian Did Redact”: An Interview With Lawyer-Journalist Mark Davis by Paul Gregoire from Sydney Criminal Lawyers Link
Mark Davis described the publishing of over 700,000 classified US government documents leaked to Wikileaks by Chelsea Manning as “a great act”. And he ought to know, as he was present at the Bunker in London in 2010 as the first major release — the Afghan War Logs — was going to press.
Davis gave a speech where he used his insider knowledge to refute many of the assertions that had been made about Assange’s level of professionalism during a recent Four Corners documentary.
And he debunked the myth that Julian didn’t redact any of the names that were detailed in the leaked files prior to release, which is “the slur” that Davis asserts is underpinning much of the reasons why Assange now finds himself in such a dangerous position.
Narrator reinforces this lie a second time: This was a secret document dump laid bare for anyone to see.
Narrator or we reinforces this lie a third time with a quote from John Bellinger III: It’s really almost apocalyptic to have 250,000 cables lost that affects our relations with every country in the world and puts sources of information, not only government sources but human rights activists and dissidents and others, at great risk.
Narrator or we reinforces this lie a fourth time with a quote from Harold Koh: The request was made to Assange to redact this material so these lives could be protected. He and his colleagues were pretty much contemptuous of this and said, “Well, let the chips fall where they may.” They weren’t interested in negotiating. They were interested in revealing.
Narrator reinforces this lie a fifth time And they did reveal, with all 251,000 documents released online and uncensored for the world to see.
Narrator says: So is this journalism? This was opening a fire hose of classified material to anyone who wanted it. Is it still in the public interest or had Assange assume the role of provocateur?
Get @SAWCSydney’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
As a member of MEAA (Australian journalists union) since 2006, Assange has been given more awards for Journalism and integrity, than perhaps any other journalist ever.
For example, in 2010 he was given The Sam Adams Award for Integrity by Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence. Given annually by the Sam Adams Associates (retired CIA officers & senior US military) to an intelligence professional who has taken a stand for integrity and ethics. The award was given unanimously to Assange for his integrity in intelligence gathering.
International journalist statement in defence of Julian Assange
“We, journalists and journalistic organisations around the globe, express our grave concern for Mr Assange’s wellbeing, for his continued detention and for the draconian espionage charges. Link.
“This case stands at the heart of the principle of free speech. If the US government can prosecute Mr Assange for publishing classified documents, it may clear the way for governments to prosecute journalists anywhere, an alarming precedent for freedom of the press worldwide. Also, the use of espionage charges against people publishing materials provided by whistleblowers is a first and should alarm every journalist and publisher.”
Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press
“This is the first time the Justice Department has ever successfully obtained an indictment from a grand jury with Espionage Act charges based exclusively on the act of publication” Link
The European Federation of Journalists
“We believe that the arbitrary detention and criminal prosecution of Julian Assange set an extremely dangerous precedent for journalists, media actors and freedom of the press,” said EFJ General Secretary Ricardo Gutiérrez. The European Federation of Journalists submitted today an alert to the Council of Europe Platform for the Protection of Journalism and the Safety of Journalists and other Media Actors, in order to denounce the continued arbitrary detention and psychological torture of Julian Assange. Link
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) secretary-general Christophe Deloire
“Let’s say it clearly, Julian Assange made a historic contribution to journalism. It was thanks to the organisation he founded, WikiLeaks, that major revelations by some of the world’s most prominent media outlets were possible. Assange’s extradition to the US would “threaten the work of all journalists” Link.
Narrator attempts to discredit Assange by using an old and proven to factually incorrect trope:
2010 draws to a dramatic close, with an arrest warrant issued for Julian Assange from Sweden over rape and sexual assault allegations that he denies. Interpol follows up, issuing a red notice for his extradition. Assange hands himself into UK police, pleads his innocence and is granted bail. By 2012 though, the sexual assault case has gone all the way to the UK Supreme Court, which rules Assange should be extradited to Sweden for further questioning.
When Assange faced the initial allegations in court, he was found to have no case to answer, and allowed to leave Sweden.
A second Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Nye reopened the case for political reasons. Assange offered to be interviewed in Sweden if they assured him he would not be extradited to the US. They refused.
Assange then offered to be interviewed in either the Swedish embassy in London or at Scotland Yard. The prosecutor refused.
European Union law has since changed so a prosecutor can no longer issue a European arrest warrant. The Swedish court system was so embarrassed by this, they forced the prosecutor to interview Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Again he was found to have no case to answer.
It is also worth noting, that when Swedish authorities decide someone has been raped, that person is assigned legal representation and legal media representation, whether they like it or not.
Claes Börgstom nominated himself and was assigned to represent the women in question (Anne Ardin & SW).
Claes Börgstrom, Marianne Nye, Anne Ardin and the police woman who interviewed AA & SW, all stood united on the same political platform for the elections at the time.
Claes Börgstom’s lawyer business partner at Börgstrom & Bödstrom, Karl (AKA Edward) Bödstrom was an intermediary between Karl Rove and the then Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt
Karl Rove (US war criminal who can’t enter Europe for fear of being charged with war crimes) was in turn an adviser to the then Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrickson.
SW has refused to sign any of the documents. SW stated she was not raped. It is her consent that has been violated by these vested interests for 10 years.
The persecution of Julian Assange is not feminist, it’s political. by Felicity Ruby Link
Global Organisation Women Against Rape have been speaking in defence of Assange since 2012 Link
14/15 Nov 2016 Questioning at the Ecuadorian Embassy (LEGALLY PRIVILEGED) Link
Narrator says: So he breaches bail and enters the Ecuadorian Embassy. Yet does not draw reference to the most basic aspects of his plight
It is also worth noting that the UK violated international laws and protocols by not allowing him to leave the embassy via a diplomatic car to the airport.
UN panel finds WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK. Link.
Opinions adopted by the UN Human Rights Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its seventy-fourth session, 30 November — 4 December 2015 Advance Unedited Version Distr.: General 22 January 2016
Opinion №54/2015 concerning Julian Assange (Sweden and the United Kingdom)
- 97. The Working Group also views that there has been a substantial failure to exercise due diligence on the part of the concerned States with regard to the performance of the criminal administration . . . “
- “101. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the adequate remedy would be to ensure the right of free movement of Mr. Assange and accord him an enforceable right to compensation, in accordance with article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
UN Human Rights Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Working Group’s Opinion on Julian Assange’s case (№54/2015), (this link will download the file) adopted in December 2015
Narrator attempts to suggest Assange manipulated the US 2016 election:
It turns out Russia was listening. As highlighted in the Mueller report, almost immediately after this request, a hacking and phishing campaign was launched by Russian operatives against members of America’s Democratic Party email accounts. 20,000 pages of emails, mostly stolen from the inbox of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, were drip-fed out on WikiLeaks in the months leading up to the election.
Assange’s work did not get Trump elected. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.86 million votes Link.
Clinton: 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.
Trump:. 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote.
It was the US Electoral College that overturned the popular vote, by the widest margin ever. (A margin of 2.1%)
It is true that WikiLeaks published materials which exposed lies and corruption within the DNC and the Clinton campaign, as they have on many issues. As a publisher, WikiLeaks’ remit is to publish verified leaks that are in the public interest to have out in the open: knowledge of the internal machinations of one of the major political parties in the most powerful country on Earth is surely in the public interest.
WikiLeaks’ Latest CIA Data Dump Undermines Case Against Russia Election Hack BY DAVE LINDORFF Link
“The case being made against Russia as being the source of leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee and of Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta — documents that proved that the DNC had been corrupting the primary process in favor of corporatist candidate Hillary Clinton and undermining the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and that also revealed the embarrassing contents of Clinton’s highly paid secret speeches to a number of giant Wall Street banks — had always been tenuous, with no hard evidence ever presented. All the intelligence agencies would say was that they had a “high degree of certainty,” or “strong reason to believe” that the Russians were the source of the deeply damaging documents late in the campaign season.
“Adding to doubts that Russia had actually hacked the DNC was WikiLeaks itself, which insisted that it had obtained the DNC and Podesta emails not from a hack of computers, but from an internal DNC staffer who actually pulled them off computers with a thumb drive and provided them to the organization — a person later identified as Seth Rich, who was mysteriously murdered on his way home from DNC headquarters in Washington, shot in the back at night in an unsolved case that the local police quickly labeled a “botched burglary,” although nothing was taken from his body by his assailant — not his wallet or watch even.
Narrator makes a second attempt to suggest Assange manipulated the US 2016 election: And while none of the emails were that explosive, it added to a narrative that Clinton was a calculated political operator with funding from big corporate donors. And that was seized upon by her opponent, who ultimately won out the general election.
Assange’s work did not get Trump elected. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.86 million votes Link.
Clinton: 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.
Trump:. 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote.
It was the US Electoral College that overturned the popular vote, by the widest margin ever. (A margin of 2.1%)
Narrator: In Ecuador, a new president there isn’t so sympathetic to Assange’s cause. Lenin Moreno’s government sees him as a rude and expensive guest who’s hampering their relationship with the US.
The UK violated international laws and protocols by not allowing Assange to leave the embassy via a diplomatic car to the airport. More to the point, can you name another instance in recent history where one country has held another embassy by siege by surrounding an embassy to thwart the rights of a political asylee?
“GENEVA (21 December 2018) — UN human rights experts today repeated a demand that the UK abides by its international obligations and immediately allows Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to walk free from the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he has been for over 6 years, fearing arrest by British authorities if he leaves, and extradition to the US.”
“As the High Commissioner for human rights said several years ago, human rights treaty law is binding law, it is not discretionary law. It is not some passing fancy that a state can apply sometimes and not in the other,” the experts recalled.
“In addition, the recommendations of the WGAD Opinions are expected to be implemented by all States, including those which have not been a party in the case concerning Mr. Assange,” said the experts. Link
I look forward to this problem being rectified, and suggest a video be compiled using the real facts as listed in this letter.
Yours sincerely, Ian Rose
