TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 11 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

Assange calls on US to drop ‘witch-hunt against WikiLeaks’

Speaking from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, the WikiLeaks founder describes Bradley Manning as “a hero and an example”.

Julian Assange acknowledges supporters before speaking from a balcony at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Julian Assange acknowledges supporters before speaking from a balcony at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Image: Sky News screengrab

WIKILEAKS FOUNDER Julian Assange has called on the United States to dissolve its investigations into his website – saying President Barack Obama must end his country’s “witch-hunt on WikiLeaks”.

Speaking from a balcony window at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been seeking political asylum for over two months, Assange said the US must “pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful”.

The 41-year-old Australian also expressed gratitude to Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa for granting him status as a political refugee this week, and thanked the Ecuadorian public “for supporting and defending” their constitutional value of universal citizenship.

“As WikiLeaks stands under threat, so does the freedom of expression,” Assange insisted.

“We must use this moment to articulate the choice that is before the government of the United States of America,” he said before a crowd of media and supporters, continuing:

Will it return to and reaffirm the values, the revolutionary values, it was founded on? Or will it lurch off the precipice, bringing us all into a dangerous and oppressive world in which journalists fall silent under the fear of prosecutions, and citizens must whisper in the dark?

The address from a ground floor balcony window – his first public appearance since losing a UK Supreme Court appeal against extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted over sexual assault allegations – was a deliberately pointed choice of location.

Though Assange has been granted political asylum, he is unable to physically travel to Ecuador, as the UK says it will not allow him passage to an airport to travel there.

Assange refuses to travel to Sweden, fearing it will result in further extradition to the US where he fears draconian punishment from authorities who are angered by WikiLeaks’ publication of confidential diplomatic cables and classified logs from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He is therefore sequestered in the Ecuadorian embassy, which under international protocols is considered the territory of that country and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of British police.

‘I’m here because I can’t be there’

Thanking WikiLeaks supporters who had congregated outside the embassy on Wednesday night, after Britain threatened to revoke the building’s diplomatic status and forcibly detain him, Assange said: “I am here today because I cannot be there, with you, today.”

He went on:

I ask President Obama to do the right thing: the United States must renounces its witch-hunt against WikiLeaks.

The United States must dissolve its FBI investigation. The United States must vow that it will not seek to prosecute our staff or our supporters. [...]

There must be no more foolish talk about prosecuting any media organisation, be it WikiLeaks or be it the New York Times. The US administration’s war on whistleblowers must end.

Assange also called for the release of US army private Bradley Manning, who remains in detention at a military prison in Kansas under suspicion of having supplied WikiLeaks with much of its key documents.

“If Bradley Manning did as he is accused, he is a hero and an example to all of us, and one of the world’s foremost political prisoners,” Assange insisted. “Bradley Manning must be released.”

Earlier, Assange’s lawyer Baltasar Garzon – a former Spanish judge known for his bold pursuit of human rights – said he had been instructed by Assange to undertake an unspecified legal action which would guarantee his safety.

He refused to elaborate on the nature of that instruction, however.

Assange faces boredom and stress as embassy standoff continues

Poll: Should the UK stop Julian Assange from seeking asylum in Ecuador?

Read next:

Comments (58 Comments)

  • As far as I’m aware, Assange is banned from making any *political* statements as part of his Equatorial asylum terms.

    As they were pointing out on BBC, his speech did have many political angles and sections.

    It’ll be funny to see if anything comes of this…

    Reply
    • Barry 19/08/12 #

      His whole case is political so its basically impossible for him to talk about his case if he doesn’t mention other countrys like he has. I very much doubt anything will come of his mentions of Obama etc when it comes to his asylum terms.

      Do I think the USA will listen to him?, very much doubt it….like Russia they generally care little what other countrys think of then…..just look how everyone viewed the USA when Bush was in power when so many actions and “crimes” were carried out by them.

      However there is that small bit of hope that Obama might see sense

      Reply
  • Bit rich of the US to condemn Pussy Riot’s 700 day prison sentence when Bradley Manning has been held in solitary, without charge for over 800.

    Assange is right to fight extradition to Sweden. One prosecutor didn’t find a case against him and then all of a sudden, another prosecutor does. They won’t question him in the UK and he hasn’t even been charged with a crime, so why extradite? Because he can’t be extradited to the US if Swedish charges have been made!

    Reply
    • manning case is different and cant be compared to a couple of young ones singing in a church. manning leaked top secret information that ultimately ended up in enemy hands and risked the lives of alot of his fellow soldiers.

      Reply
    • Even the US State Dept disagrees with you on that Paddy.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/19/wikileaks-white-house-state-department

      Reply
    • Even so, Paddy has a point; Manning was an active soldier who committed treason.
      No matter his motives, he gave away very sensitive information and will have to stand trial for that as one…

      Reply
    • Agreed manning is very different. JA leaked confidential secret info and apart from a very comments the yanks made about the worlds leaders there was nothing condemning in it no conspiracies or anything like that. If someone broke into government buildings and released a lot of our sensitive info we would be pissed too. He needs to answer for his actions.

      And besides that the us could have got him in the uk Sweden is no different. JA just wants to be as difficult as possible because he does not want to go to court and jail for rape. What rapist would

      Reply
    • Paddy, Bradley Manning has not been found guilty of anything as yet but has been held without trial by the US. For the first 10 months he was held in solitary confinement. He was also denied exercise, social interaction and sunlight and at times was left naked, all in contravention of US law. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, has called the US’s treatment of Manning “cruel and inhuman”. So it’s understandable that Assange wouldn’t wish to go there. As for Pussy Riot, yes it is different, at least they had a trial (no matter how biased it may have been), unlike Manning.

      Reply
    • If there is such a good case against Manning, he should be charged. He has at this point, been sitting there for long enough. There’s no reason he can’t be granted, at the least, a military trial, and to do otherwise is something the US should be embarrassed about.

      And Daisy, from what I do know about Swedish law, he cannot be charged until he has been interviewed and enters Swedish territory. There is clearly an arguable case to be made regarding sexual offences charges which need to be answered.

      Reply
  • Not a mention of the allegations against him in Sweden, or how he’s going to respond to them?

    Reply
  • Strange how the US condemns Putin and Russia over the Pussy Riot debacle but then sees itself fit to do exactly the same thing in the case of Assange.

    Reply
  • http://t.co/3kOJTIf0

    A calm and measured response as expected.

    Reply
  • Its difficult to know what to make of the whole Julian Assange affair, everyone has heard something about the charges against him, but then everyone has an opinion on it so it’s almost impossible to get truly impartial information.
    I’ve been doing a bit of “googling” and read a few sites to try to see some sort of picture of what happened and from that form an opinion of the whole thing. I happened across a blog by a Swedish journalist, Helen Bergman.
    http://khelenebergman.blogspot.ie/2012/06/julian-assange-is-already-condemned-by.html
    She believes that part of JA’s problem is that much of Sweden’s society and culture has degenerated into “man-hating radical feminists”. This is a Swedish feminist, a patriot, saying the man hadn’t got a chance there. It really was a witch hunt, and she lay’s a lot of the blame at the foot of the Swedish media particularly the Swedish tabloid Expressen.
    While there are many othere sites they all say much the same things, some exaggerate parts of the story, some make parts up but this site by JA’s mother, Christine, seems to stick to the essential points.
    http://wlcentral.org/node/2486

    Both women AA and SW had consensual sex with JA, neither had any complaints – that is untill finding out about each other, then text messages between the two “speak of revenge, making money, and ruining Julian’s reputation by going to press.” They make complaints to police and it only goes downhill from there.
    Sweden’s prosecutor revealed details of the story to the press and JA found out he was wanted for double rape by reading it in Sweden’s Expressen paper. The next day the charge was thrown out but the investigation for harassment continued.
    JA offered himself for interview to police on 30/8/10, it appeared in the Expressen newspaper the next day.
    A biased police investigation continued with leaks to the media. The rape charge was restated on 1/9/10 upon appeal, JA was not told about the appeal.
    A “deliberately torn” condom was submitted as evidence by AA, but neither JA’s not AA’s DNA was found on it.
    Swedish tabloid newspapers were granted access to the police file of the case – but JA’s lawyer was denied access.
    JA stayed in Sweden for 5 weeks and made attempts to be interviewed by the prosecutor, they were refused but she gave him permission to leave Sweden on 15/9/10, he left on 27/9/10.
    On 29/9/10 JA offered to return to Sweden on the 9,10 or 11/10/10 but was told it was “too far away”.
    In Oct/Nov 2010 JA, while in London, offered himself for interview under the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) Scheme between the UK and Sweden. It was refused.
    On 2/11/10 JA’s lawyers told UK police he could be contacted through them for legal reasons.
    On 18/11/10 Sweden was granted a European Arrest Warrant for JA for questioning not prosecution.
    On 20/11/10 Sweden authorised Interpol to issue a Red Notice for JA, despite knowing exactly where he was.
    EAW’s were again issued on 26/11/10 and 2/12/10.
    On 7/12/10 JA presented himself to Kentish Town police station to answer the EAW and for the first time saw the charges against him in writing.
    On 14/12/10 JA was granted bail of $374,000, Sweden opposed this.

    Reading this, and other sites, I have to say I’m inclined to believe that yes JA had sex with the two women but what happened after that is appalling. He made every effort to try and speak to the Swedish authorities, who seemed to leak everything to their tabloid media. While that happens, it does seem to be very selective in this case and along with everything else I can’t help but believe that JA has a point.
    Has he any chance of a fair trial in Sweden? Without a doubt no, in fact there seems to be little reason for him to be on trial in the first place. The whole thing is a shambles, either the aim is to get JA or it’s such a mess that nobody wants to shout stop and ask who started it.
    Is there a chance that he will be extradided to the US? Yes, I think so. Many of their politicians have publicly said what they would like to do to him and this whole affair seems to be like an extradition plan that went wrong.

    You judge.

    Reply
    • Someone accused of rape putting out the view that the accuser is out to get him? How unusual!

      To be honest, it’s also totally hearsay about what the women did and whether he did indeed refuse to stop when asked. The best way to determine guilt or innocence is through the court.

      Reply
  • What ever happened to the guy who put the “fat boy” portraits of our former dear leader Brian Clown ?
    Did Interpol ever track him down ?

    Reply
  • One of his accusers actually organised and then threw a party for him days after he allegedly assaulted her – by how? …Supposedly wearing not a condom!

    Wait! Why did she then throw a party for him – them wait a very long time before reporting him for supposedly not wearing a condom?

    But there is more… The second prosecutor that was rushed in (you know, when the first one found Assange hadn’t a case to answer for!) “Ny” declined the opportunity to interview Mr Assange after she took over the case on 1 September 2010, despite the fact that he remained in Sweden until 27 September 2010…

    But there’s more… Ny did not have to immediately resort to a European arrest warrant to interview Assange, but could have made a request via a procedure called Mutual Legal Assistance. That she resorted immediately to seeking Assange’s arrest and extradition without first exhausting other options is, in many legal opinion, a breach of the principle of proportionality.

    But there’s more – the Swedish government has not broken their own law for the first time against Assange! Confirming of the identity of ANY suspect to the media, is completly against proper procedure and in violation of the Swedish law and rules regarding preliminary investigations. In accordance with Swedish secrecy and confidentiality laws, confidentiality applies to everything that occurs during a preliminary investigation… the prosecutor has not been disciplined by the way!

    Reply
    • That’s his side and the spin JA puts out but were you there? You should try going to court sometime and giving “opinion” instead of fact and see how far you get.

      Also naming the suspect. Do you not think a suspect who flees a country to evade justice should not be named? Bit nuts don’t ya think. The guards do it too if looking for suspect so do the psni. Only about two weeks ago I recall a guy sought for raping a granny was arrested in Dublin after a public appeal. That one even made the journal.

      If he is guilty or not it’s not a court of public opinion he will be in its a court of law. He will be going to Sweden one way or another and any potential jury will know he tried his best to evade justice. A point that will be played on if he goes to trail if there is the proof to bring him to court. He is his own worst enemy and incidently the USA as been saying very little all this tripe is coming from JA and his people.

      Reply
    • @ Stewie Griffin

      Don’t be so stupid – those are also the legal facts that are on record.
      Go look them up!

      Reply
    • They’re not. They are the account that has been linked by his defence attorneys. In rape cases, (shocker!) both sides tend to have different versions and it’s up for the investigators to decide if there’s a strong enough case, not someone on the internet prejudicing both parties fair trial rights.

      You can oppose his potential extradition to the US (as I do) without victim blaming. Try that.

      Reply
    • Don’t be so stupid ? Why :) because I know exactly what I’m talking about and happened to be informed on matters. Oh ignorance is bliss for you.

      Reply
    • Stewie the rapist that you referred to has been convicted of rape, been released on probation and breached the terms of his probation. As a result he had a bench warrant issued against him ( I presume) and was on the run from outstanding charges. JA on the other hand has had no charges brought against him, was not denied exit from Sweden and so is not on the run. In fact he was denied a work and residence permit in Sweden so he was actually told that he could not stay in Sweden!

      So allegations were made, he was questioned, charges were dropped, he was told that he could not stay in Sweden, when he leaves Sweden the charges are reissued and an arrest EAW was issued. He didn’t flee Sweden he was told he couldn’t stay, big difference.

      Reply
    • I would argue he is on the run at the minute, Brian. He breached his bail under UK law.

      Reply
    • Of course he does not have charged against him. He refuses to cooperate with investigation. In Ireland as with any other country you must be arrested and questioned in this country relating to a crime here. Can’t do Skype interview as he offered. The law does not do what he wants!!! He will do as the law demands.

      I’m sure he is more then welcome to stay in Sweden now. They even want him back.

      Anyways how’s this going to end ? JA will be sent to Sweden maybe he will hold out till end of year but I’ve absolutely no doubth that Sweden and the uk will uphold the law that keeps us all safe and will send him to Sweden on the legally binding European arrest warrant

      Reply
    • Yes Nick he is on the run but from UK police and not the Swedish police as he has not been charged with anything as yet.

      Stewie as I pointed out to Nick on another comment just a few moments ago, JA’s lawyer said that Assange offered to meet Swedish authorities in the Swedish embassy which would have been the same as being in Sweden but they declined. i know they want him back now but they should have thought of that before they told him that he had to leave.

      Reply
    • There are very conflicting stories on that, Brian, as the Guardian has reported he refused to meet face to face. Obviously Assange and the government both have agendas in this, so I certainly wouldn’t take either as fact without an independent source!

      Reply
    • Here are 2 sources,

      http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html#QUES Take it as you will seing as it’s pro-Assange.

      http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml This on the other hand are the official statements against Assange so they should allow you a better insight into what he is accused of. Note that one claimant ” says she freely consented to have sex with Assange but she couldn’t have let it happen if she’d known he didn’t have a condom” and the other I’m still trying to figure out.

      Reply
    • Ahhh come on conduct an investigation in the Swedish embassy?? Seriously? Actually that’s out of question as with Ireland these things can only be carried out in secure places of detention. If how blogs commits rape he is arrested and brought to a police station. JA is no different he is not a god he is a coward evading an investigation.

      Reply
    • @Stewie JA did not flee Sweden to avoid their justice, he asked permission to leave the country and it was granted, even then he offered to return for interview but the prosecutor felt the times he offered were inconvienient.
      Do you remember earlier this year our Supreme Court denied a French extradition warrant for Ian Bailey in connection with the Sophie Toscan du Plantier murder, this was because the French just wanted to question him, not charge him with anything. The same thing applies here. The Swedish government want to question JA, but while they hold him they propose to violate his rights by holding him incommunicado.
      The essence of the charges against JA are that, while he had consesual sex with both women, they both claim they asked him to use a condom and he did so but deliberately tore them. To say the entire case against him is shoddy is putting it mildly. I believe he is very right to be worried, he should have no case to answer to in Sweden but clearly at least two governments are very anxious to see him brought there.

      Reply
    • Stewie you don’t have to be interviewed in a secure place of detention for any arrestable offence, you can be questioned anywhere. You can be cautioned and questioned anywhere, in fact I was once cautioned and questioned in a church car park as a result of a car accident that I had. A woman’s brakes failed and she hit me while I was stopped in traffic. The cop had to caution me as to dangerous driving etc because it is procedure and he questioned me there and then. If it was for a more serious offence and I refused to go with him he could have arrested me and brought me t the station.

      Only recently a man was interviewed about alleged rapes in Dublin. http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0815/ireland/gardai-hope-to-bring-charges-against-danger-to-society-204141.html “the fact the man agreed to be interviewed voluntarily allowed them to arrest him at a future date. ” So he didn’t need to be arrested to be interviewed and while he went to a Garda station he could also have told them that he could have met them somewhere else and been cautioned and questioned there.

      Assange hasn’t evaded investigation he has in fact already been interviewed by the police http://rixstep.com/1/20110130,01.shtml .

      So to sum it up. You do not have to be arrested to be interviewed, you can be interviewed anywhere and Assange has already co-operated with police voluntarily.

      Reply
    • Brian first. Ian Bailey was very different. The french wanted to question him about a crime that occurred here which is totally unacceptable as they can not investigate Irish affairs. If we were to compare this to JA it would be Sweden wishing to question him about a sexual assault that occurred in the UK. this is not the case they wish to question him in relation to allegations made about an alleged offence in their jurisdiction.

      Brian now. I hit on this point in another Article on this explaining the investigation system when an allegation is made a person can be invited to do an interview under caution. However, if new evidence comes to light be it DNA or maybe CCTV footage or even if his story does not match up he can be arrested to further investigate the offence. By the way an arrest-able offence is a offence which carries 5 years or more imprisonment. Your traffic accident was not arrest-able offence as would be defined under section for of the criminal justice act here. You or other party could be arrested for dangerous driving to be charged if there was such evidence at the scene but there is a specific power of arrest for that.

      but i do have an insight into well the irish system anyway but sweden would be much the same so i can see why they cannot do a skype interview

      Reply
    • Stewie I take your point about new evidence but to my knowledge there has been no new evidence offered, it is just that the same charges have been reopened after being dropped.

      Reply
    • @Stewie I haven’t got time to address all the points you raised but basically the French WERE given permission by our government to come here and investigate, they sent a team of dectives and forensic experts. The FBI have also been allowed to investigate certain people here at times.

      http://www.independent.ie/national-news/french-detectives-arrive-today-for-sophie-toscan-du-plantier-investigation-2894117.html

      Reply
    • they were invited over yes to see about what their investigators would uncover and see if gardai missed anything but the prospect for a prosecution in France for irish crime was never going to happen and that was never agreed on.

      Reply
    • Hi, Brian. The view that the woman freely consented until she realised he didn’t have a condom is hearsay, based on Assange’s version of events. Both parties in these cases ALWAYS have different versions, which is why it should be determined by the court, rather than solely listening to the party who has access to a large following on the internet…

      Reply
    • @Nick I agree with you that in cases like this, or probably any, there are usually three sides, his, hers and the truth. I should have said “the essence of the charges against JA appear to be” as it is very difficult to get an unbiased opinion, as you said, but both “sides” in this case seem to agree that this is what he is alleged to have done.
      Please understand that when trying to find this information I did so with an open mind, I have a mother, wife and daughter and would not want to be supporting someone who may be guilty of any sexual assault. At the same time if he was accused in the wrong, as a means of extorting money from him or as a way of extraditing him to America then everything he has said all along carries weight. The truth is only three people know exactly what happened and if anyone else wants to form an opinion on it, whether us or a court, then they have to balance the evidence, and it is out there sadly, although it shouldn’t be, and on balance I don’t think he should have any charges to answer to. I think the private and personal faces of JA may be two different things, he may be a nasty piece of work in his personal life but that does not mean he has commited a crime.

      Reply
  • Is he an albino, why doesn’t he dye his hair jet black and wear a false beard and he could just walk. Not stereotyping at all

    Reply
  • for an innocent man he is a making a fair mighty effort to dodge being questioned over an alleged sexual of a woman.

    Reply
  • don’t worry lads the CIA or whoever will make sure assange has an unfortunate ‘accident’ before long…………you don’t ever day try take on the playground bullies of this world in the likes of the brits and yanks cos they will always win!

    Reply
  • Did he mention a single thing RE Sweden? If not, it shows a complete disrespect to authority, and a complete disrespect to due process. The US have not made one single move on Assange to show that they want him extradited to the States. His fears are a tad unfounded.
    Either that, or it’s not the States he’s afraid of, it’s Sweden. And if he did do wrong there, as is currently everyone’s outlook by his behaviour, he should be made face the law, like every other person.

    Reply
  • Useful insights…I wonder about the “deliberately torn” condom …seems odd

    Reply
  • I don n’t know what to make of him, for someone that appears to be anti establishment he seems to have very little support from that quarter?

    Reply
    • What side? He has a huge amount of support from a lot of people. I don’t see why some people seem to think he has a hidden agenda. All he has ever done is release the truth through a website about the shit that western governments are doing around the world in our name.

      This case in Sweden stinks to high heaven. Anyone that has read up on it should be able to see that. The Americans want him badly. He has a lot more dirt on them. He has said it himself. That can’t sit too easy with them. Knowing that one man has the potential to cause a shit storm of epic proportions.

      Reply
    • Barry, I suppose what I am trying to reconcile is that only 50/60 people turned up to hear him speak today with this seemingly large level of support that supposely exists. In A way the whole affair is a bit like the story of the hen and the pig in contributing to a breakfast. The hen (Assange) contributes but the pig (Manning) makes the ultimate sacrifice. I think that has a big bearing on peoples attitude to him.

      Reply
    • He has lied about the allegations he has faced. By claiming “sex by surprise” is the allegation and that it’s “not a crime in England”. While that doesn’t mean he’s done it, it does mean that he’s in no way above misleading people.

      Disappointing from someone whose politics I admire.

      Reply
  • He should be dragged out me thinks

    Reply

Add New Comment