World Map by jscreationzs
 
 
 
 
Home
Features
Politix
Banksters
Business & Economy
Media
Society
Environment
Science & Tech
Archives
 
FOLLOW US
 
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter
 
GlobalEthix Twylah Fan Page
 
FEATURES
 
Interview with Christine Assange Part 1
Wednesday July 4, 2012
 
Global Ethix wanted to get Christine Assange’s side of the story, on Julian Assange struggle; she has been campaigning on her son’s behalf against his extradition request to Sweden since his campaign began at the UK Supreme Courts for the past 18-months.
 
Currently Julian Assange is in the Ecuador Embassy in London awaiting approval from the Ecuadorian government for Political Asylum from what many people regard as an unlawful extradition to Sweden and a possible subsequent extradition to the US for rendition. The rendition is for his alleged involvement with PFC Bradley Manning. the Army intelligence Analyst, who is accused of disclosing the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and the series of controversial US diplomatic cables CableGate.
 
Christine sets the record straight on much of the misreporting and even deliberate smearing by the mainstream media on the alleged incidents of rape in Sweden, and the circumstances leading up to Julian seeking resorting to sanctuary in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
 
As a mother and as campaigner for justice and freedom of speech, Christine Assange shows considerable courage, strength, hope and grace under pressure; however, ironically Christine claims to not to be technology savvy like her son Julian.
 
Christine also reveals many facts that will surprise people in this candid and revealing interview.
 
“Julian is NOT Anti-US; he is not Anti-US, in fact he is a great admirer of the American / US Constitution.”
 
 
The Interview - Part 1:
 
GlobaEthix: What is his official legal position at the moment?
Christine Assange: At the moment he is being afforded safe sanctuary in the Ecuadorian Embassy, because he has lost faith in getting justice through the legal system; it is a legal right and international Human Rights law; we’re just awaiting permission from Ecuador about Political Asylum; there’s just one more thing in that, the people who backed him with the bail conditions, are 100% behind him, they are very unlikely to lose their bail money or assurances, because it is actually a legal appeal procedure, so they’re 100% supportive of the political asylum bid.
 
NOTE: Campaigners for Julian Assange who contributed the the £240,000 Bail Money include filmmakers Michael Moore and Ken Loach, investigative journalist and author John Pilger and Jemima Khan.
 
GlobalEthix: Thursday [28th June] Julian was served noticed at the Ecuadorian Embassy to present himself at Belgravia Police Station for extradition; International Asylum conventions and laws supersede such situations, so why do you think the British Police recognise the order for extradition for Sweden if there are no Criminal Charges against Julian?
Christine Assange: That’s just the UK posturing; the UK are just showing how much they really are in support of this thing [as in Julian Assange’s extradition to Sweden subsequently US]; it’s also a legal requirement I think to do it, but the aggression with which its being shown indicates the UK is just a lackey of the US.
 
GlobalEthix: Yesterday [Friday 29th June] Susan Benn, from the Julian Assange Defence Fund, addressed the media outside the Ecuadorian embassy, reiterating that there are no Criminal Charges against Julian in Sweden, dismissing the alleged Bail Violation and stating the request for political asylum takes precedent over all other legal statutes and other extraditions are being processed. Do you think her statement today will make an impact in raising greater awareness of Julian’s situation?
Christine Assange: I read part of it; It was just a simple statement wasn't it that Julian was going to be permitted his right to refuse [extradition], and that it his right to seek for Political Asylum and that he’s not breaking the law [International Human Rights to Asylum Laws]
 
GlobalEthix: Yes I believe International Human Rights laws supersede all other laws in such matters.
Christine Assange: Yes, I think that the International part was there because it was recognised that the embassy do reach the human and civil rights of people speaking out politically.
 
GlobalEthix: Do you think the majority of the public have an accurate picture of Julian’s situation?

Christine Assange: No I don’t, I thinks it’s the contrary actually, there has been a lot of laziness on the part of journalists who are not investigating the facts, just cherry picking on each other’s commentary; there has also been deliberate smear, people who do know the facts deliberately twisting the facts misrepresenting Julian, including for instance our own Prime Minister, the Swedish Prime Minister and our own Attorney General all who have made ments they know absolutely to be untrue, statements like that he was charged with rape when he was’t, that he fled Sweden when they know full well that he had permission to leave, they tried numerous times to get him to be questioned but was not backed. So this is a concerted effort, by the Media on behalf of the Governments, many of whom have paid substantial amounts of money in advertising to the media companies to distort truths and the facts, and to paint Julian and WikiLeaks in a poor light.

 
What’s interesting is what it’s revealing to the people, is that the assertion that Julian is mad, all along that the media are really just a mouth piece of the government, now people are seeing it for themselves, with the persecution of Julian and the misreporting all the facts of the case, and are deserting the mainstream media in droves once they find out are and are going to the internet for their information.
 
I can give you an example if you like from me personally; I’m not a person who’s actually very computer literate, I don’t actually like computers, I was against them, ironically. So I got on Twitter, I had no so that I could help get the facts about Julian’s case.
 
But since I’ve been on Twitter, I’ve realised how uniformed I was when I was just relying on the Mainstream Media, and I’m delighted to be on Twitter because I’m up to date; an example of this would be, when I first got onto Twitter I got Tweets coming in from Occupy Wall Street, from the ground, I knew nothing about it, and for the next two weeks the Australian Mainstream Media did not report on it, so it [Occupy Wall Street] was up and running for two weeks.
 
The second time I saw something which really brought this home to me was tweets from people who lived in units and flats around Tahrir Square in Egypt, and they were saying that the Egyptian Police were coming in and confiscating their cameras, and were hitting reporters over the heads with bricks, taking their cameras, and they were very fearful that something was about to happen. On the Mainstream Media reports that night, it said that Egyptian Police had quelled disturbances in Tahrir Square, as if that was something that had happened spontaneously, but obviously from the Tweets what was happening was that they [Egyptian Police] were removing cameras prior to attacking demonstrations, so that was very premeditated, it wasn't just a response of the Egyptian Police.
 
The third thing was that the National Defence Authorisation Act of America was discovered on Twitter, where the Americans have now made legislation effectively declaring the US a Police State, whereby the Military can now arrest people without warrant, foreigners and citizens and detain them indefinitely without trial; the Australian Media has only started to report on that in the last couple of days, and that [passing of NDAA Act] was a good six months ago that that happened.
 
What surprised me was that a whole lot of journalists that I know here knew nothing about it.
 
I did an interview with Russia Today and I found them very truthful and that often is not the case with the Mainstream Media.
 
Journalists told me that in the Australian Mainstream Media that they get about 60% of the advertising funding comes from the Government, so there’s pressure there.
 
GlobalEthix: Of all the corruption and unethical practices that WikiLeaks has exposed, what do you think has been biggest factor in triggering events leading up to Julian’s current situation?
Christine Assange: It’s such an interesting question isn’t it, because WikiLeaks has actually been going for around 6-years, and for the first 4-years, nobody threatened Julian’s life. He reported on events in Africa, toxic fuels on the Ivory Coast, he’s reported on the Extrajudicial Killings in Kenya, for which he received the Amnesty [International] Media Award, and many other things, but nobody’s tried to do what the Americans have done to him; so it would appear that US embarrassment unlike everyone else is Life threatening.
 
GlobalEthix: As there are no official charges against Julian, why do you think an extradition order was issued against him?
Christine Assange: Well I think I’ll give you the facts so people can make up their own minds; basically I’ll make it simple and then I can go into detail if you wish.
 
Julian has made himself available for questioning in Sweden with regards these allegations. I’ll start from the beginning from sometimes in order it makes more sense to people.
 
Julian has never had an allegation of Sexual Misconduct against him ever in his life, and then got two of them within the first two weeks of arriving in Sweden to set up the servers of WikiLeaks; the current party there and Swedish Members of Parliament were going to host the servers.
 
So what happened is that the allegations were made; neither woman alleged Rape;
 
Neither of them are WikiLeaks Volunteers by the way, another bit of misinformation put out; Julian has never met these women before, they had sought him out. So the allegations were made.
 
Woman “AA” took Woman “SW” to a Police Station further away than she needed to, to her friend Irmeli Krans a Police Officer at the station who interrogated Woman SW for hours.
 
Woman SW was so upset with the interrogation when the police said that they were going to allege that Julian committed rape, that she couldn’t finish the interview and would not sign the statement.
 
Within 24 hours, Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm Eva Finné dismissed the Rape Allegations as completely baseless.
 
Around a week later, a politician lawyer named Claes Borgström, along with woman AA, who brought to the hearing at the appeal (where he appealed the dismissal of the rape allegations), he had shopped around a prosecutor who was a well-known radical feminist called Marianne Ny.
 
Woman AA (because they needed new evidence) submitted a condom, which she had held on to for some 10 days, she said, and she said that Julian had deliberately torn the condom. But when it was forensically examined, not only did they say that it had NOT been deliberately torn, but there was no DNA of Julian or Woman AA in the condom.
 
Now, it’s interesting to the note the connection between Woman AA and this Politician Lawyer Claes Borgström; both of them and the Police Officer that interrogated Woman SW and Claes Borgström’s business partner Thomas Bodström are all members of the same Swedish political party, the Social Democrats, and all stood for election together a month after the allegations were made, in one of the party’s platforms, Borgström’s platform was widening the definition of rape within consensual sex, and these two lawyers run a Rape Claimant Law Firm, in other words they represent Rape Claimants, the more Rape
Claimants they have the wealthier they are. And these two and the Swedish Prosecutor they chose have all been connected together for 10 years, widening the definition of Rape, in Consensual Sex.
 
Julian was not informed about this appeal, so had no chance to give submission.
 
Now on top of that, the women were not interrogated according to Swedish Law, they breached the law in the way they interrogated in that it wasn't done by video or audio, so it [interrogation] was written down in the Police Officer’s own words; and then that was leaked to the Swedish Media, which is also unlawful, and they [Swedish Police] would not give Julian’s lawyer a copy of the file. So Julian approached Prosecutor Ny and asked to be interviewed so that he could clear his name, she refused to interview him; he stayed 5 weeks in Sweden trying to get an interview. His file said that he had permission to leave Sweden because he held up business meetings with his Media CableGate partners
 
Now it’s interesting to note too, that just before he arrived in Sweden he had released the Afghan War Diaries and was about to release the Iraq War Logs and Cable Gate, all of which the US knew about because he’d asked to help in Redactions, to protect innocent people, which they refused and they sent him threatening letters, so they knew he was about to do it.
 
He [Julian Assange] left Sweden on the 15th of September with Marianne Ny’s permission and offered to fly back in on the 9th and 10th of October for interview, she refused saying it was a weekend, he offered to fly back in on the 11th of October, it was too far away.
 
He persisted trying to get interviewed while he was staying at the Journalists’ Club appearing for Iraq & Cable Gate, by offering to be interviewed by a protocol, which is a normal way to interview people in these situations when you’re overseas called Mutual Legal Assistance, which is by Skype or Phone or Video link up, she refused that, and misinforming the Swedish people that it was illegal when in fact Sweden and the UK are signatories to that protocol. Then just before CableGate and just after she then took out a European Arrest Warrant attached a Red Note the highest order because she said that he left Sweden refusing to be interviewed. He’s offered himself for questioning since being under House Arrest for the last 18-months to the Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny in the Swedish Embassy or at Scotland Yard and she’s refused all requests.
 
I asked my son what he thought was going on and he said:
 
“it’s simple, if she questions me, she has to either charge me or drop the case; if she charges me, she has to give me the evidence and there is none, and it’s a holding case for a US extradition.”
 
And they’ve got him in one place and if they get him over to Sweden, that he won’t be on bail he will go straight into prison, uncharged and unquestioned into remand prison, incommunicado with the media, only through his Swedish lawyers, so in other words they will have him in a position where he can do nothing to defend himself and he’s held there awaiting for when Americans feel it’s a good time to serve a warrant for extradition; and one of the reasons that Sweden, very few people realise this, the US and Sweden have a separate Bilateral Treaty, under which there is a clause called TEMPORARY SURRENDER that’s a Fast Track Rendition with much fewer safeguards than a normal extradition.
 
And in Australia the Greens [Green Party] Senator Scott Ludlum made a motion in the [Australian] Senate to protect Julian from Temporary Surrender, and this is how far the Australian Government, the Liberal Party and the Labour Party, since then for the US they blockaded that motion and voted against it. They voted against protecting him from a Fast-Track Rendition to the US, and Sweden has refused to guarantee that they won’t extradite him. And there’s a lot of evidence that Sweden and the US has been in talks about extraditing Julian, it was printed in The Independent in December [2011]; Hilary Clinton from the State Department visited Sweden in the few days following Julian’s Supreme Court decision [in the UK] and it was the first visit by the US State Department in 40 years in Sweden. The other thing people don’t realise, is that the current political advisor to the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, is none other than Karl Rove, has been for the last three years now. Karl Rove is a disgraced smear agent of the Bush Administration; he was a political adviser to George [W.] Bush and he had to leave the US in 2007 disgraced as he was involved in vicious smear campaigns against political opponents. He’s also good friends with the Foreign Minister in Sweden Carl Bildt. Also with Sweden, Sweden is the number one arms manufacturer in the World per capita, and was the number one arms supplier to the US during the Iraq War, and some of the Swedish politicians have been so concerned about the erosion of their democracy due to the US interference in their political system that they’ve resigned from the parliament; there’s routine data collection now on Swedish citizens by the US.
 
Global Ethix: With all the technology available today, why can’t Julian be questioned via Video Conference in court which has become common practice?
Christine Assange: There’s absolutely no reason at all, this is something that they normally do but they’ve actually sent officers into other countries to question murderers, this is selective, they are refusing because they don’t want the answers to the questions because then they’ll have to drop the case because there is no evidence, there is a lot of evidence actually to indicate that the bogus allegations there were a hundred texts between the women and their friends which would indicate that neither of them felt that they were in any way mistreated by Julian, in fact enjoyed his company and that he treated them well; and that texts were there saying that they wanted to get money and seek revenge, only when they found out about each other; they were the ones that made the connection with Julian, they were the ones that invited him [Julian] into their homes.
 
He was at that time in a very distressed state, because the US were threatening him, and he assumed these two women were there to protect him and befriend him in a country where he hardly knew anybody and where his life was at risk and he feels very betrayed.
 
GlobalEthix: The decision of the British was a shock to many people; why do you think the Judges decided to overturn the appeal against extradition to Sweden?
Christine Assange: It wasn't a shock to me. Pretty good question, quite simply, because if you look at the decision, so keen were they to do it, they even got the major fact wrong that he hadn’t been charged, so obviously they were so keen to do it; I mean how can the Supreme Court with seven judges get something so basic as the fact that he had not been charged wrong, how could that happen? And on top of that, they did the absolutely unthinkable, which was to introduce new evidence into an appeal, that is unheard of; in an appeal court you can only adjudicate on the evidence from the lower court from where the appeal was applied. Now they introduced new evidence which would indicate that the evidence from the lower court was misjudged, because if they had any case at all to disallow Julian’s appeal from the evidence in the lower court they would have used it. Anybody who saw that the arguments between Diana Rose [QC for Julian Assange] and Claire Montgomery [QC acting for Swedish Authorities] about the extradition, would she that Diana Rhodes won hands down with her arguments; in addition to that, they’ve [UK Supreme Court] betrayed the British people, because many many people in Britain are very very unhappy about this European Arrest Warrant and also people in Europe, because it was rushed through after 9/11, and all the safeguards were removed, and the problem is now that many people who are not terrorists who aren’t a real danger to society are now being caught up and a thousand people a month are being extradited from Britain.
 
I don’t know if essential you are aware of this, but you don’t have to present a Prima Facie Case, any evidence can extradite somebody, you just have a Tick Box, no evidence at all.
 
Anybody can be extradited. Do you know that they were extraditing people for murder who had had an abortion or tried Euthanasia?
 
The UK should have gone like other countries who have amended their part of their agreement with the European Arrest Warrant; Ireland refuse to extradite for questioning, absolutely refuse; both Belgium and Germany have amended their part of the agreement to cover the section on euthanasia, because they think it’s unfair, Belgium will not extradite if the Ticked Box for Murder and all the allegation is that if the person has had an Abortion or was involved with Euthanasia. People are being taken overseas to countries which have no Human Rights records and being interned there for years and years over very small misdemeanours.
 
What people do not realise is that the British people have been trying to get this changed this for 8-years and many judges are unhappy with it as well, and in fact the High Court stated in Julian’s case, that they [High Court] thought that Parliament had been misinformed when they passed this European Arrest Warrant legislation, and in fact they’re unhappy with it, and did the British people a disservice. What is interesting to note is that this was a European Arrest Warrant, the US have been over there lobbying over this recently, so they’ve had their hand in this as well.
 
GlobalEthix: Do you think the British Judges are in collusion with the Swedish Authorities and the US authorities?
Christine Assange: Well makes one wonder, doesn’t it? I don’t know how to answer that, or if you looked at the actions, you would have to say there has definitely been pressure applied by someone, truth number one. Based on who they are, I couldn’t say, because I don’t know. But here you have a journalist, who’s decorated around the World, a media organisation similarly, so it’s a legal legitimate organisation, that no country in the World can show any proof of any criminal wrong doing, even the US Department of Treasury said they had no reason to Black List him, where you’ve got a case in Sweden which has got abuse of process all over it, and here he is uncharged unquestioned on huge bail, strict bail conditions, ankle tagged, and even the allegations coming out of Sweden are minor, so one has to wonder doesn’t one
 
Pinochet [Chilean General] the leader who was known a murderer, the British Government overturned a decision to extradite him. And I believe that they had also refuse to extradite the Pedophile; I don’t know all the cases but I do know that this case is not tracking properly, this case is breaking all normal procedures and all history of cases in the UK, so it’s up to people to make up their own minds up. I have my own personal views of it, I’ve been fairly outspoken about that, I believe that Governments will cooperate across borders, to refuse legislation and legal rights to get Julian to be quiet about corruption in the World, and that it’s being pressured by the US.
 
GlobalEthix: Do you feel this is a case of entrapment?
Christine Assange: I don’t know about that, I’m not sure about that. It could just be, look nobody knows except the two women involved, right, and maybe only one woman is involved in entrapment and maybe no women are involved in entrapment. It could simply be, that Woman AA for example is a known radical feminist and a politician aspiring, I don’t know and a lawyer who raised the rape allegation was a politician and they were all involved with trying to widen the definition of rape within consensual sex. Is it there is a possibility this was a personal thing and a domestic political thing, which then escalated once it was known that there could be capital gained in the wider political context, or for political opportunism, also Julian’s famous.
 
Anonymous hacked into the emails and got 5 million emails out of the Global Intelligence company Stratfor, which are located in Texas; now there were 6,000 emails there pertaining to Julian and two of the global intelligence company’s [Stratfor] major clients are the US Military and the US Government; and in those 6,000 emails, was a lot of talk about how they were going to get Julian, set him up, drag him through court cases one after another, bankrupt him and all these things have actually happened, and smear his name and all that. But also there was another email in there which I think was very important and that was that one of the agents, and all these are ex-CIA people now working privately for Stratfor, said that they knew one of the women, and that the allegations were bogus, and it was an issue about a prosecutor trying to make a name for herself. Don’t forget that Julian’s a very famous person, so anyone associated with the case is also going to be famous, so it could be a mix of things in there initially. Someone who’s wanting to career build, another woman, in AA’s case for example wanting to make a name for herself politically by smearing a famous person and making it about widening the definition of rape within in consensual sex, same for the Swedish prosecutor, same for the lawyers.
 
But then at some point, if not from the beginning, it’s that political opportunism has come in in regard to the US, because if the Swedish Government was about justice as Eva Finné the Chief Prosecutor was when she dropped the case, they would have pulled this current prosecutor Marianne Ny into line and they have haven’t done it, and you have to ask yourself why the Swedish Government has not reprimanded her for the continual breaches of Swedish Law. So at that point at least, when Marianne Ny came in we can see a government agenda coming in here.
 
GlobalEthix: You’ve written an open letter to the Australian People to put the record straight; what do you think are the most damaging untruths that have been circulated about your son?
Christine Assange: The most damaging one that he’s been charged, and that’s untrue, he has not been charged
 
Secondly, would be that the women alleged rape, they didn’t, the Police alleged rape.
 
Thirdly that people are unaware that Rape in Sweden can be for non-violent consensual sex, so things that we would consider normal they label as Rape.
 
The other thing was that he fled Sweden, he didn’t flee Sweden, he was given permission to leave, after requesting interviews.
 
The fourth thing was that Julian is NOT Anti-US; he is not Anti-US, in fact he is a great admirer of the American / US Constitution. He believes that the current administration under Obama is ignoring, breaching the Civil Rights laid down by the Founding Fathers.
 
In addition to that, he did not seek the information about the US; WikiLeaks never knows who is going to drop anything in the anonymous drop-box or what it is. WikiLeaks was actually setup to help the Third-World, people who are suffering under dictatorships, that couldn’t get the message out.
 
They [WikiLeaks] did not in their wildest dreams expect to get anything from the US. But now that we have seen what was in those documents we can see that the US Government operates like a rogue dictatorship in regards to its civil rights of its citizens.
 
What other things? Oh that Julian is in some way motivated because he’s strange or weird or narcissistic; now we don’t these questions about other journalists that have great breaking stories; we don’t ask for example the childhood history motivations of the Editor of the New York Times, or Glenn Greenwald, or Jeffrey Robinson because he fights for Human Rights or Gareth Peirce. Why should Julian be any different? This is a legitimate media organisation that has won international awards for its journalism and so has he, important awards. Why should his motivation be any different to any other person out there fighting for human rights and justice and transparency and good journalism?
 
 
Awards & Recognitions received by Julian Assange:
  • Nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize by Norwegian parliamentarian Snorre Valen
  • Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2011
  • Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal in 2011
  • Listed in Time Magazine’s Most Influential People in 2011
  • Sam Adams Award in 2010
  • TIME magazine's Readers' Choice Person of the Year poll in 2010
  • Le Monde, named Julian Assange Person of the Year in 2010 in online poll where he received 56% of the votes
  • Amnesty International UK awarded Assange the 2009 Media Award for New Media for his efforts in exposing extrajudicial in Kenya with the publication “The Cry of
  • Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances”
  • Acclaimed as a journalist by the Centre for Investigative Journalism in 2009
Christine Assange: What else? O that the WikiLeaks disclosures someway threaten human life, that’s untrue; both of the disclosures/publications have been published by other media organisations all around the World because they also believe that they don’t threaten other peoples’ lives, that WikiLeaks actually operates a HARM MINIMISATION PROCEDURE where documents are redacted; the people who have been most irresponsible in this have been the US Government because WikiLeaks approached the US and asked them to redact documents so that innocent peoples’ lives weren’t under threat and the US Government refused to do it, so WikiLeaks had to do it; and to date because they are so far in the way they have painstakingly done this, not one person has been specifically harmed as a result of their disclosures.
 
The other thing is that WHAT WIKILEAKS IS ALLEGING IS UNTRUE; WikiLeaks does not allege anything; WikiLeaks is Scientific Journalism, it just puts the documents out there.
 
Now not one government in the World has ever stated that any of those documents lacked authenticity, and that’s the reasons that they’re smearing Julian personally. They can’t get WikiLeaks on being dangerous; they can’t get it on lacking authenticity, so the only thing they can do now is to smear the Editor-In-Chief, and they have been doing that Ad Nauseam all around the World; making psychological evaluations when they haven’t even met him, or unqualified to do so etcetera, distorting his background history, and making him out to be some kind of a weirdo, he’s extremely bright, and extremely brave and extremely committed, but he’s not a weirdo. If that makes you a weirdo, if being bright committed ethical and brave and seeking justice makes you a weirdo, then I hope more weirdoes arrive in the World.
 
Isn’t it telling though, that someone who is ethical bright brave seeking justice, is seen by the Mainstream Media as a weirdo, isn’t that saying more about them than it is about Julian? In other words if he [Julian] were to lie and tow the Government line he’d be considered normal. I think they can dupe themselves with their own mouths with that one.
 
GlobalEthix: Many politicians are regarded as so out of touch with the real world, and are too busy with their politicising and socialising with peers and don’t even know the price of a bottle of Milk.
Christine Assange: I most agree with that and probably take that a little further and say that they’re not even interested in knowing what’s going on. Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of politicians in politics today who have not chosen to go to their jobs to serve their country or the people but are in there as a career to make contacts which will further their business interests, and to get the good money that they’re paid and the good perks and pensions when it [political careers] finishes; because I know of politicians who know the facts.
 
In Australia here, we had a number of politicians stand up and be very vocal about what they though what was happening to Julian was wrong and that WikiLeaks was a good organisation, until the Obama visit. After the Obama visited they all kept their mouths shut except for the Greens who have been fabulous here. So they have already acknowledged that it’s [campaign against Julian] wrong and that WikiLeaks is a good organisation, that one of those same people who was the most vociferous in December 2010 in support of WikiLeaks and Julian, voted against protecting him when the Greens put the motion in the Senate, he voted against protecting him from a Fast-Track Rendition from Sweden when he knew it was wrong.
 
So I’m not sure what’s going on. I’m wondering whether the US Officials, meaning personally, on our Australian Politicians, are they threatening them? I do know that in Australia that the US Embassy taps people on the shoulder, I’ve been told by Unionists, that when the Unionist here is seen to be on the rise in power they get tapped on the shoulder from an official from the US Embassy and asked if they would like to in inverted commas “STUDY IN THE US”.
 
In one of the WikiLeaks cables showed that one of these people a Senator Mark R. Gibb was actually from that point, after studying in the US a covert informer for the US for 4-years. And I’ve also been told by journalists the same thing happens with journalists. Now, the Stratfor email also revealed that they had journalists on their payroll covertly. So we could play a game at some point, with the journalists that are smearing Julian, could we perhaps play the game of SPOT THE STRATFOR INFORMANT JOURNALIST that’s on the Stratfor Payroll? Wonder which one’s they’d be? I won’t say so now, but something for people to think about when they see the way journalists are reporting on Julian. We know that Stratfor has stated in their emails that they’ve got journalists on the payroll all around the World. Their major clients are the US Military and the US Government. Now why would they have journalists on their payroll?
 
So by their fruits ye shall know them, as the old saying goes.
 
Now look at what these journalists are saying and you might be able to indicate to yourself, which are ones on the Global Private Intelligence Agency Stratfor payroll to discredit Julian.
 
Click here for Part 2 of the Interview...
 
 
 
 
 
Related Links
 
Christine Assange Open Letter to the Australian people 03/06/2012
 
Follow Christine Assange on Twitter: @assangec
 
Justice for Assange
www.justice4assange.com
 
WikiLeaks
www.wikileaks.org
 
Amnesty International UK
www.amnesty.org.uk
 
Free PFC Bradley Manning
www.bradleymanning.org
 
Follow Free Bradly Manning on Twitter: @SaveBradley
 
Senator Scott Ludlam at Australian Green Party
www.scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au
 
 
Return to Top
 
 
"WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical." - Julian Assange
 
 
       
      Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter