0:14

Hello,

0:14

everyone. I'm

0:16

here today.

0:18

speaking with Stella Asange, who

0:20

is the wife of

0:22

Julian Paul Asange.

0:24

And I'm going to start with his bio

0:26

in a strange twist since he, at the

0:28

moment, can't speak for himself, and then I'm

0:30

going to turn to hers. Julian, Paul,

0:33

Assange is an Australian editor

0:36

publisher and activist who founded

0:38

WikiLeaks in two

0:40

thousand and six. In

0:42

two thousand and ten, WikiLeaks published

0:46

a series of leaks provided by

0:48

American intel analyst Chelsea

0:50

Manning. and attracted widespread

0:53

international attention. And outrage,

0:56

I would say, in early two thousand

0:58

and ten, Manning, who reported being

1:00

horrified by the behavior of

1:02

then his colleagues to

1:05

close three quarters of a million

1:07

classified and unclassified, but

1:10

sensitive, military slash diplomatic

1:12

documents to WikiLeaks,

1:15

an online news site. The US

1:17

government then launched a continuing criminal

1:20

investigation into WikiLeaks. In

1:24

two thousand and ten, Assange songs

1:28

began to be pursued, and

1:30

I say began because went on for a very

1:32

long time, began to be pursued by

1:34

Swedish authorities for alleged

1:37

sexual misconduct

1:39

the

1:40

episodes. Those charges

1:42

were eventually rescinded. UK

1:46

authorities operating

1:48

as a consequence of the Swedish

1:51

call arranged a potential extradition.

1:53

Assange at that point,

1:55

broke bail, violated UK

1:58

law, and took refuge in

2:00

the Ecuadorian embassy where

2:03

he remained under different conditions

2:06

for many years from

2:07

two thousand and ten to two

2:09

thousand and nineteen. but was

2:12

finally arrested and returned to the UK.

2:15

Where he

2:16

has been in prison since in

2:19

Belmarsha category a

2:21

prison in London. He

2:23

currently faces the possibility of

2:25

extradition to the US

2:28

and possible prosecution there on

2:30

some eighteen essentially espionage

2:32

related charges.

2:36

According

2:36

to the Irish Times recently,

2:38

it's now a year and a half since Assange

2:41

his fifty week sentence.

2:43

for jumping bail. And this is where the

2:45

Julian Assange story gets even stranger

2:48

if possible. Despite

2:50

the fact, that there are

2:52

new new charges against him in the UK.

2:54

He is still in the category a prison,

2:57

Belmarsh, where

2:58

he has spent much of his time

3:01

in solitary confinement.

3:03

In May two thousand nineteen,

3:05

Assange was brought up on seventeen

3:08

new charges to the US Aspen

3:10

Dodge Act of nineteen seventeen,

3:13

and they carried with them those charges

3:15

a maximum sentence of hundred and seventy

3:17

years. The Obama

3:19

administration considered charging

3:21

Assange similarly previously

3:23

but decided not to give a concern

3:25

that it might negatively affect investigative

3:28

journalism as such and could well

3:30

be unconstitutional. The

3:33

New York Times stated

3:35

They did and other news organizations obtained

3:38

and documents in the same fashion

3:40

as WikiLeaks and could

3:42

not see that

3:44

WikiLeaks publications differed legally

3:47

from other journalist publications

3:49

of classified information. After

3:52

Assange's arrest and first indictment,

3:55

the New York Times editorial board

3:57

wrote that, quote, the case

3:59

of mister

3:59

Assange who got his

4:02

start as a computer hacker. I think

4:04

this is a crucial

4:05

insight here, illuminates the

4:07

conflict of freedom and harm

4:09

in the new technologies and

4:11

could help draw a sharp line

4:14

between the queen legitimate

4:16

journalism and dangerous cybercrime

4:19

and

4:19

that the

4:21

administration has

4:23

begun well by charging mister Assange

4:26

with an indisputable crime

4:28

there's always a risk with this administration,

4:31

one that labels the free press as,

4:33

quote, the enemy of the people, that the prosecution

4:35

of mister Assange could

4:37

become an assault on the first amendment

4:40

and whistleblower.

4:42

As I said, I'm talking to date with his wife,

4:45

knee Knee, Stella Morris, and

4:47

was originally Sarah Gonzalez, and

4:49

she changed her name to

4:51

try to maintain a certain semblance of privacy

4:53

in the midst of this unbelievable chaos

4:56

and complexity. Miss

4:59

Morris was also Assange's

5:02

lawyer. The couple was married in twenty

5:04

twenty two, although they had established a long term

5:06

private relationship during Assange's

5:08

extensive time in

5:11

Ecuador. They had two

5:13

sons during that period. Stella

5:16

Assange was a twenty year old

5:18

twenty eight year old lawyer when she first met

5:20

Julian in two thousand eleven

5:23

interested

5:23

in the work of WikiLeaks and believing

5:26

that the nonprofit media organization

5:29

was shedding valid

5:31

and necessary light on unacceptable corruption

5:33

and crimes of war. She

5:35

has said of her husband, quote,

5:37

Julien, doesn't like people

5:39

who are deceitful. He doesn't

5:41

like opportunists, and he

5:44

can be quite direct.

5:45

Also, people who are on the autism

5:48

spectrum, mister

5:50

Assange, has been diagnosed with Asperger

5:52

syndrome, don't score particularly

5:55

high on the agreeableness

5:57

scale.

5:59

Both

6:00

Julian and his wife are freedom

6:03

of information champions and had

6:05

experienced similar childhoods,

6:08

similar parent engines, and similar

6:10

extensive mobility.

6:12

and that gave them in something in common in

6:14

addition to their interest in freedom of

6:16

expression. She completed a degree in

6:18

law and politics as so as in London,

6:20

her MSC at ox in

6:22

refugee law and then

6:24

a masters in Madrid in

6:26

public international law. And

6:28

so

6:29

Welcome, Stella. It's very good of

6:31

you to sit and talk to me with

6:34

me under these conditions, which must be

6:36

incredibly stressful. I've I've really

6:38

never

6:39

seen

6:41

someone in

6:42

as complex and tangled

6:44

a web as your

6:47

husband and you for that matter.

6:49

And so that's really something because I've

6:51

met people who have been in very complex

6:53

webs and your situation is

6:56

unbelievably

6:56

extreme. I was struck by

6:59

the New York Times comments

7:01

on and

7:04

Proclamation that Julian was really a

7:06

test case for the limitations

7:11

on the journalistic front of

7:12

The new technologies that

7:15

enable such widespread disclosure

7:18

of heretofore hidden secrets

7:20

mean, Part of this, I would say,

7:22

is a consequence of just magnitude

7:24

of operation. Now, demanding

7:26

leaks were seven hundred and fifty

7:28

thousand documents. And of course, back

7:31

in the days of mirror print and

7:33

highly limited access to bandwidth on

7:35

the radio and TV front, there isn't a possibility

7:38

that any journalist could ever

7:40

cause seven hundred and fifty thousand

7:42

pages worth of trouble at once.

7:45

And so I see at least in

7:47

part that the conundrum in relationship

7:49

to your husband is

7:51

his whistleblower in combination

7:55

with

7:55

the mass scale of the operation that

7:58

computer technology enables.

8:00

And so it looks to me like

8:02

you two are caught at the nexus of

8:05

what

8:05

radically new technology,

8:08

personality, and law.

8:10

And

8:10

so it's not precisely as

8:12

this as if I have sympathy for the

8:14

fact that he's been vilified and

8:17

prosecuted

8:17

so assiguously, but

8:20

I

8:20

can understand the complexity of

8:23

the situation in some real sense

8:25

that's given rise to this. So

8:28

The

8:28

first thing I'm kind of curious about

8:30

if you don't mind is,

8:34

what elements of Your

8:37

husband's situation would you like to highlight to begin

8:39

with? I mean, the most compelling to me seems to

8:41

me the fact, obviously, that

8:43

he's still in prison under

8:45

pretty dire circumstances, despite

8:48

the fact that in some sense, the

8:50

legal justification for his sentencing

8:53

has Well,

8:54

at least arguably expired. And

8:56

so maybe you could fill everybody in on that,

8:58

and then we can continue with the conversation

9:00

as it unfolds. Well, I think that

9:02

Julian is and that

9:04

he will historically in in

9:07

with time be seen in

9:09

this way is the foremost political

9:12

prison, prisoner of the west. He

9:14

is a critic, he's

9:14

a dissident, and he's

9:17

also an innovator. What

9:19

Julian did was he brought

9:21

his

9:22

past background as a computer programmer

9:25

and computer security

9:28

expert

9:29

into journalism. He understood

9:32

before anyone else the

9:34

architecture of

9:37

Internet communication and how

9:39

as

9:40

journalism moved on to the Internet

9:42

as emails were being used to

9:44

communicate with sources and so on. It

9:46

was incredibly easy

9:48

to identify

9:51

sources and that therefore any

9:53

meaningful investigative journalism would be

9:55

over. And so he he took

9:57

that. He also,

9:59

yes, saw the opportunity of being

10:02

able to

10:02

operate at

10:03

scale. And this

10:06

is one of WikiLeaks chief

10:08

achievements, which is to have

10:10

basically become a library

10:12

of reliable, truthful

10:15

information records. And

10:18

in that sense, we feel like kind

10:20

of transcends traditional

10:23

journalism, which was seen as a threat

10:25

to the legacy journal journalistic

10:28

outlets like The New York Times and so on, and I

10:30

can go back to that

10:34

editorial that you mentioned that

10:37

he did things differently

10:40

and to a much

10:42

greater to achieve a much greater

10:44

impact And there's a diff there's

10:46

another aspect to this, which is as a

10:48

computer programmer working

10:50

on open

10:52

source software and so on. You used to

10:54

collaborating with others

10:57

because if you're just going to work on your

10:59

software on your own, you're achieving a

11:01

suboptimal result.

11:03

And so he brought

11:05

the idea of collaboration into

11:08

the journalistic world, which

11:10

was completely unheard of something you

11:12

now hear with the Panama Panama

11:14

papers and so on, a consortia

11:17

of of news organizations

11:19

coming together to go

11:22

through these vast

11:25

material that had never been done before. And

11:27

we feel we've pioneered that And

11:29

the and the first big collaboration

11:31

came in twenty ten with the Chelsea Manning

11:33

weeks, which related to the wars

11:35

in Iraq, Iraq and Afghanistan,

11:38

the US State Department

11:40

cables and the

11:42

Guantanamo Bay files. And

11:44

Chelsea Manning also leaked

11:46

the collateral murder video,

11:48

which is perhaps what Wilhelix

11:51

is most famous for. But

11:53

the fact that Wilhelix operates receives

11:59

or has a

11:59

capacity to receive big data sets

12:02

anonymously from sources. Doesn't mean that that's

12:04

the only thing that we Helix publishes. and

12:06

it doesn't mean that WikiLeaks publishes

12:08

its wholesale. In fact,

12:10

in part of the as part of the

12:13

extradition hearings. There's

12:15

been a lot of expert

12:18

well, no, witness testimony. People

12:20

who are working with Julian at

12:22

the time of these

12:23

twenty ten publications who

12:27

witnessed how Julian took

12:30

steps and perhaps and was the

12:32

one with the who was taking the

12:34

most responsibility and doing the

12:36

most to redact those

12:38

documents and to put them out safely and to look

12:40

out for information

12:43

that could possibly harm

12:45

a person in a sense of

12:48

physical harm or arbitrary detention

12:50

that that shouldn't happen. But

12:53

of course, he was

12:55

working, and WikiLeaks was working in

12:57

collaboration with other

12:59

news outlets, and they had other considerations.

13:02

For example, The Guardian

13:04

is concerned of about

13:06

being sued by oligarchs. The

13:09

New York Times had

13:12

you know, perhaps similar

13:15

considerations, but these are

13:17

major players in the

13:19

media with their own relationships

13:21

with power players. So

13:24

WikiLeaks impact and Julian's impact

13:26

was undeniable at the time. He

13:28

came onto the stage as

13:30

a and he was treated

13:32

sort of as a rock star.

13:34

And everyone knew who

13:36

Julian Assange was, but most

13:38

people

13:38

wouldn't know who

13:40

the editor of The New York Times is,

13:42

but in their in their

13:45

worldview, their far more respectable

13:47

and important than this

13:50

Australian newcomer who's

13:52

who's changing the roles of the game.

13:54

So there were Anyway,

13:57

maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but

13:59

No. No. Well, you're outlining multiple

14:03

what you say, points of potential conflict

14:05

of interest between the various players. Let

14:07

me push you on that a little bit. Okay? Because this

14:09

is one of the things that popped

14:11

into my mind. I always

14:13

try to take both sides of

14:15

an argument, let's say, what I'm trying to

14:17

think it through, to try to make the strongest case

14:19

I can for both sides. And so

14:21

I started I I would say I'm probably

14:23

temperamentally sympathetic to your

14:25

plight and also to Julian's flight.

14:27

And so I also have to caution myself

14:30

against that to some degree because

14:32

I'm not a fan of great

14:34

intrusive organizations whether

14:36

they're state or

14:37

corporate, but

14:39

they still the devil still has to be

14:42

given as do. When

14:44

when when operating at the scale

14:46

of revelation that characterized

14:48

WikiLeaks. So let's

14:50

say these seven hundred and fifty thousand documents

14:53

that were part and parcel of the

14:55

collaboration with Manning. How

14:57

is it even possible to

14:59

be judicious in their release?

15:01

because you could imagine And if you any

15:03

objections to this argument, please let me know.

15:05

One argument you could make is

15:07

that secrecy

15:09

in and of itself is dangerous.

15:12

and that it's the role of the media

15:14

to uncover and expose

15:16

secrecy, especially if it hides

15:18

potential mouth theses as

15:20

assiduously as possible. And so

15:22

the proper role of an investigative

15:24

journalist is to dampen the torpedoes

15:26

and steam full speed

15:28

ahead and reveal what

15:30

there is to be revealed.

15:32

And the counterargument, I suppose,

15:34

from the more secretive militaristic

15:37

side or the more limited

15:39

state interest side is, well,

15:41

that's all well and good, but there

15:43

are circumstances under

15:45

which

15:46

privacy and secrecy

15:48

at least temporary is

15:50

both strategically and ethically necessary

15:53

and in cautious behavior on the

15:55

part of journalists is

15:57

very difficult to discriminate

15:59

between

15:59

valid from

16:00

valid threats to national security.

16:03

And then you might say that the legacy

16:05

media when they were in their heyday and

16:08

reliable which is not so

16:10

obviously the case now, was

16:12

composed of journalists who were

16:14

able to straddle that

16:16

judicious line revealing

16:20

inappropriately secret acts of

16:22

malfeasance when that was necessary, but not

16:24

doing so in such a

16:26

way that compromise their ongoing relationships,

16:28

let's say with the people

16:29

who whose

16:30

behavior they had to attend

16:33

to and cover and also not

16:35

airing into the untested

16:37

waters of destabilizing

16:39

state state security. Then you ask

16:41

yourself, Well,

16:42

maybe that's true and maybe it isn't and you can make

16:44

an argument in various directions there.

16:47

But if you release the volume

16:49

of documents that WikiLeaks releases

16:52

Is

16:52

it even possible to take

16:54

the due care that might

16:56

be expected from or even demanded

16:59

of legally by

17:02

experienced journalists who were operating at a

17:04

more minor scale.

17:06

Hey guys, producer Colton from the DailyWire here.

17:08

Getting a good night's sleep is one of the

17:10

most important things you can do for your health. Just

17:12

like your diet and exercise routine are unique

17:14

to your body's needs, So

17:16

are your sleeping habits? That's why

17:18

Helix Sleep provides tailored

17:19

mattresses based on your unique

17:21

sleep preferences. The Helix lineup

17:23

includes fourteen mattresses each

17:26

design for specific sleep positions

17:28

and preferences. Side sleeper models

17:30

with memory foam layers offer optimal

17:32

pressure relief, stomach and back

17:34

sleeper models feature a more responsive

17:36

foam to cradle and support your body.

17:38

Plus, Helix mattresses offer enhanced

17:40

cooling features to keep you from overheating at

17:42

night. Don't compromise on comfort. Helix

17:44

Sleep quiz and find your perfect mattress in

17:46

under two minutes. Helix mattress

17:48

ships straight to your door free of

17:51

charge. Try it for a hundred nights risk free. Go to

17:53

helix sleep dot com slash

17:55

Jordan. Take the Helix Sleep quiz and get up to

17:57

two hundred dollars off from mattress order

17:59

plus two free pillows. That's helix sleep dot com

18:01

slash Jordan for two hundred dollars off all

18:03

mattress orders and two free

18:05

pillows.

18:07

Well, I think you

18:09

you need to break it down. What

18:11

were these seven hundred and fifty

18:13

thousand documents that were published?

18:15

So you had

18:16

ninety thousand, I think, from the Afghan

18:18

war diaries. And of

18:20

those fifteen thousand were withheld biweekly.

18:24

precisely because it was

18:26

considered that they needed

18:27

further review. The Iraq

18:30

warlocks, there was a different approach

18:33

which was to have an

18:35

automated,

18:36

what's it

18:38

called, redaction. And in fact,

18:40

there was, I think, article in

18:42

Wired, there was criticism over the redactions

18:44

of the Iraq Warlocks because

18:47

they said it was being overrejected. So

18:49

one example was there

18:51

had been a document that had been obtained

18:54

through Freedom of Information Act request.

18:57

And from the

18:59

Pentagon and that was already out there.

19:01

And that this this

19:04

document that had been released to a a

19:06

journalist was redacted, but it was

19:08

less redacted than the version that

19:10

WikiLeaks published. Then you

19:12

have the

19:14

Guantanamo

19:14

Bay files In

19:16

that case, it was the the

19:19

the sorry. The

19:22

the the files of each of the

19:24

of the detainees who were in Guantanamo Bay.

19:27

Until then, no one even knew who

19:29

was there. Why they were there? How

19:31

many were there?

19:32

And there was a

19:35

witness testimony in the extradition hearing

19:38

from a lawyer who represented one

19:40

of these which one animal baby

19:42

thingies who

19:42

said that it was through those

19:45

files that they were able to understand

19:47

understand what

19:49

who

19:50

the who had incriminated them.

19:52

The person who had incriminated their client

19:54

was someone who had confessed under

19:56

torture, and it was through that that they

19:58

were able to

19:59

then than

20:01

in their case. So

20:04

in

20:04

relation to the one tenimal b

20:07

files, The

20:08

telegraph, for example, published the exact

20:10

same dataset. In relation

20:12

to the diplomatic tables,

20:15

it's actually very interesting because

20:17

WikiLeaks, it's two hundred and fifty

20:20

thousand cables.

20:21

WikiLeaks initially had

20:24

a consortium of five big publishers. It

20:26

was a Guardian, The New York

20:29

Times, El Paris in Spain,

20:31

Deutschpeople, and LeMonden

20:33

France. And these five

20:35

big publishers

20:37

did the initial stories with

20:39

WikiLeaks, but then they quickly just lost

20:42

interest. And then WikiLeaks then

20:44

entered into agreements with

20:46

about a hundred different media organizations

20:50

around the world because these publications

20:52

concerned every single country

20:54

in the world. And

20:55

i'm on

20:57

through

20:58

sharing these documents with

21:01

newspapers, in local

21:04

newspapers, they were able to

21:06

report because, you know, the New York Times might

21:08

not be not interested in

21:10

Burkina Faso, but for the people in Burkina

21:13

Faso, those state department tables

21:15

were you know,

21:17

part of their history, but

21:19

also of of enormous

21:22

potential impact. And that's what

21:23

what journalism does

21:27

And as part of their the

21:29

agreement with WikiLeaks, when an

21:31

media organization entered into an agreement

21:33

with WikiLeaks, there was a written

21:35

agreement in which they would

21:38

review the cables. And so cables

21:40

would be published as stories were published,

21:42

and they would also review that there was no

21:44

one named who would be at risk of

21:46

arbitrary detention or death. And

21:48

so that was their

21:50

their obligation, and they fed

21:52

those reductions to WikiLeaks who then published

21:54

the table with

21:55

the reduction. what happened with the diplomatic

21:57

cables? While the Guardian, in

21:59

its

21:59

fight towards Julian, which we

22:02

can go into, wrote

22:04

a tallow book

22:06

in February twenty eleven.

22:08

And in that book,

22:10

against its

22:11

written agreement with with Julian,

22:13

they published the entire cable

22:16

gate encrypted file

22:19

password.

22:20

that had been entrusted to them.

22:22

And this is just from a computer

22:25

security perspective, this is absolute

22:27

madness. It is just

22:29

almost a joke. And they

22:31

published it as a subheading in

22:33

their in their in

22:35

the chapter. And Do you think

22:38

they knew what they were doing? I mean, they claimed

22:40

that they thought it was a temporary code

22:42

from

22:42

what I've read. And do you do you think they

22:45

understood what they were doing? They

22:46

understood that they were trying

22:50

to

22:52

undermine Julian in any every

22:55

possible way, including by to closing,

22:57

you know, whatever security

22:59

measures that they

23:02

had

23:02

were privy of.

23:04

tribute

23:04

to, but the

23:06

I think it

23:07

was sheer stupidity. And,

23:10

of course, they then tried

23:12

to justify themselves and they said,

23:15

oh,

23:15

he told

23:17

us it was a temporary password, but that's

23:19

not even what the book says.

23:21

in the book, you

23:22

know, it says and Assange

23:24

told

23:24

us, this is the long password, and the

23:26

long password is something like

23:31

a a

23:32

record of diplomatic history from nineteen

23:34

sixty six to the

23:35

present day, but the word diplomatic was a

23:38

word that should that

23:40

that they were not to write down. They should

23:42

never write down. And so in in

23:44

the in the book, they even put the

23:46

word that you should never write down

23:48

in there. So I think

23:50

it was carelessness. It

23:52

was also a race to

23:54

to getting their narrative out.

23:56

Because by then, Wickie

23:58

weeks. Julian

24:00

and

24:01

the and the

24:04

journalists at the Guardian that that were had been

24:06

working on these diplomatic cables. I

24:08

mean, all the by then, the

24:11

guardian had all the mining leaks. So they

24:13

had basically used

24:15

Julian, and they didn't need him anymore. And

24:17

then they turned on him. And

24:19

they're they're Why why do

24:21

you

24:22

so so one of the things

24:24

that's popped into my mind continually while I was reading

24:26

through the unbelievable trials and

24:29

catastrophes that your

24:31

husband and you have been through is

24:33

something like, and I'm not claiming this is the

24:35

case at all. I'm just saying what

24:37

popped into my mind.

24:40

And certainly, this is an accusation

24:42

that's been leveled at me, is that

24:44

someone in that much trouble must

24:46

have done something wrong. And

24:48

I would say, well, probably that's true

24:50

to some degree because everybody has done

24:52

something wrong. It's a

24:55

very dangerous function. Because given

24:57

that each of us has probably done

24:59

something wrong, that means that we can be

25:01

called out on it arbitrarily

25:03

and with force when that's in

25:05

the interest of people whose interests

25:07

we've opposed. And

25:09

then also, the

25:11

fact that that's the case, that that sort

25:13

of doubt can be elicited means

25:16

that people

25:16

who are inclined to take you out for

25:18

whatever reason have an easy pathway to doing it,

25:20

and maybe that would bring us to what happened in

25:23

Sweden. So It wasn't very and and I

25:25

have some personal questions to ask you on that

25:27

front. And and you're obviously

25:29

welcome to not answer

25:31

any questions that I might post you,

25:33

and I hope I don't do it rudely and

25:35

appropriately. But it wasn't

25:37

long after this

25:39

vast trove of documents was published,

25:41

and you're now making case that were

25:43

actually published with a fair bit of

25:45

care and maybe

25:47

even to a lesser degree than they

25:49

might have validly been published It

25:51

wasn't long after that before the authorities in

25:54

Sweden brought charges

25:55

against your husband in relationship

25:57

to sexual misconduct. That was in two

25:59

thousand

25:59

and ten. very interesting to

26:02

me that it was Sweden. Your

26:04

husband, Julian, described

26:06

Sweden as the Saudi Arabia of

26:08

feminism, which I thought was a pretty nice phrase, by

26:10

the way. And definitely something

26:12

to be said about that. And that

26:14

was also at the height or

26:16

in the pro drama to

26:18

the believe all women and me

26:21

too, what would

26:22

you call it, and the

26:25

insistence that if

26:27

any charges of sexual

26:29

misbehavior were ever brought

26:31

against someone that it was incumbent

26:34

on everyone to assume

26:37

that the victim was

26:39

telling the truth. And of course, that

26:41

violates the presumption of innocence. It often

26:43

violates your right to face your accuser, and

26:46

it's preposterous on the face of it

26:48

because what that does is enable

26:51

anyone who's manipulative or

26:53

devious or psychopathic to use the

26:55

entire weight of the legal system as a

26:57

weapon, which is happening so often now

26:59

that it's almost beyond prehension. And it seems

27:01

a bit too convenient in some

27:03

real sense that these

27:05

charges emerged just

27:07

at the time that was most

27:09

appropriate in some real pragmatic

27:11

sense for the authorities in the UK and the

27:13

US. But I'd ask you also more personally.

27:15

I mean, you married this man.

27:17

You an affair with him for a long

27:19

time. You have two children together.

27:21

For some reason,

27:24

you didn't either

27:26

you didn't believe the charges

27:28

and the allegations or

27:30

you you

27:32

saw something in in Julian

27:34

that superseded them

27:37

of value.

27:38

And so

27:40

and this is

27:40

a deeper question too. I mean, you've got tangled

27:42

in this pretty deeply and you

27:44

could have had a much simpler life. And so,

27:47

why are you on his side? Why isn't

27:50

it reasonable just to assume

27:52

that Julian Assange is a narcissistic

27:55

troublemaker with a proclivity for

27:57

a sexual impropriety. And

27:59

why do you believe that so deeply that Well, in

28:02

some real sense, you were willing to stake your whole

28:04

life on it. And why aren't you

28:06

just being played? And I'm not

28:08

saying that you are, but obviously, those are the

28:10

questions that that all

28:12

the people who are launching allegations it gives

28:14

to your husband and you, those are the claims

28:16

that they're putting forward essentially.

28:19

Well, Julian is the man.

28:21

I know. The

28:23

man I married, I know. wouldn't

28:26

do those things. And in fact, the

28:28

way he's described as the app the

28:31

exact

28:31

opposite of who he

28:33

is. And that's not

28:35

how I came into it to this though. I

28:37

came into it in

28:39

a professional capacity precisely

28:41

in the context of these

28:43

Swedish allegations. And I

28:45

you made a mistake, which is

28:48

completely understandable because you

28:52

read everywhere that Julian was charged,

28:54

but in fact he was never charged.

28:56

There was only ever

28:57

A00 okay.

29:00

I'm sorry. Yeah. It was only ever a so

29:02

called preliminary investigation, and

29:04

it was dropped on four separate

29:06

occasions. The

29:09

So

29:09

why was there an extradition order if it was

29:11

only a preliminary investigation? Right. And

29:13

or is that exactly the issue?

29:16

No. Look. That is a

29:17

very good question. And in

29:19

fact, Julian's case went all the way to the

29:21

supreme court. He lost and the

29:24

UK supreme court said he

29:26

should be extradited to Sweden. And then they

29:28

said, and we have to change the law. So this

29:30

doesn't happen again because you need to charge

29:32

before we night, but it won't be re retrospective.

29:34

Oh,

29:34

I see. So they

29:35

they legislate it, but carved

29:38

out a little exception for Julian, so he

29:40

wouldn't benefit from it. and that has been the

29:42

norm again and again and

29:44

again that somehow Julien

29:46

is treated as the exception and then we're going

29:48

to fix it afterwards.

29:49

What were the allegations exactly?

29:52

What what were the Swedish allegations?

29:54

And how many people brought them

29:56

forward? and

29:57

why weren't they pursued? So according

30:00

according there were two women and

30:02

according to their own account,

30:03

they went to police

30:06

because to the

30:08

police, because they had found out that both

30:10

of them had slept with Julian over

30:12

the within a week.

30:14

and they want Julien to have an

30:16

HIV test. That is their

30:18

reason according to their own account for

30:20

going to the police.

30:22

And you can go to the police in Sweden

30:24

for that reason? Well, who

30:28

knows?

30:28

But just to put this in context

30:30

Yeah. Okay. Okay. So Julien

30:32

had just published the Iraqi warlocks

30:35

sorry, the Afghan warlocks in July,

30:37

twenty fifth of July, I think it was

30:39

or so.

30:41

The Swedish preliminary investigation was

30:44

opened on the twentieth of

30:46

August. But in between that,

30:48

even you went to Sweden, there was article in the Daily Beast,

30:51

which said that the

30:51

US State Department was telling its

30:54

allies to find a way to

30:56

stop Julian in his in his tracks and

30:58

to find a way to prosecute him. Uh-huh. And

31:01

they knew that Julian still had to

31:03

publish the Afghan warlocks in

31:05

the diplomatic tables. The

31:08

sorry, the Iraq War logs. The Iraq War

31:10

logs were were published in October.

31:13

and

31:13

the diplomatic cables on the twenty

31:16

ninth of November, Sweden

31:18

issued its its

31:21

Interpol arrest warrant on

31:23

the thirtieth of November, one day later. Julian voluntarily

31:27

went to the police station

31:31

and was lost his liberty

31:33

on

31:33

the seventh of December twenty ten.

31:35

He was put in prison for ten days, then he

31:37

was under house arrest for a year and

31:40

a half He was in for seven years, then he was

31:42

arrested, and he's been in Belmar's high

31:43

security prison ever since. So well,

31:46

so the women wanted

31:48

him to undergo an HIV

31:51

test,

31:51

but those

31:52

that's still not allegation

31:55

of misbehavior. what

31:56

well, although who knows in Sweden, what

31:59

were the

31:59

specific allegations? And you said

32:02

the allegations were dropped

32:04

before formal charges were brought

32:06

on four separate occasions. So what were the

32:08

allegations? So there are four allegations, three

32:10

in relation to one woman and

32:12

one in relation to the other.

32:15

The the single

32:17

allegation which was most serious is what

32:19

they called

32:20

lesser rape. So

32:23

there's three degrees of rape

32:25

in Sweden, and there this

32:27

was the the lesser degree in the

32:29

sense that there was no physical

32:32

coversion. And

32:34

the allegation is that

32:37

Julian initiated

32:38

sex when the woman was

32:41

asleep.

32:41

The

32:44

Swedish police have

32:47

text messages from the women,

32:49

which they refused to hand

32:51

over to the defense.

32:54

And those text

32:56

messages exonerated Julian. and

32:58

his lawyers, his defense lawyers were able

33:00

to read them at the police station,

33:02

but were not allowed to

33:05

take a copy. Julian would only be

33:07

able to access those text messages

33:09

once

33:09

he was charged. So

33:11

you have

33:12

this this he

33:13

was placed

33:14

deliberately placed in this

33:17

position of complete disadvantage

33:19

in relation to his own defense because

33:22

at no point during those nine years

33:24

where Sweden was opening and closing

33:26

the preliminary investigation, was he

33:28

formally an accused person?

33:30

because once you're accused, you start getting

33:33

all these the the

33:35

rights of the defendant, and

33:37

they never reach that point. and

33:40

because

33:40

there was no case. So that

33:42

the there was an initial prosecutor

33:44

who will cage the suspicions.

33:50

Then three days later, the the

33:52

senior suite of

33:54

prosecutor

33:54

of Stockholm reviewed the

33:58

allegation, this most serious the more serious

33:59

allegation, which is so called lesser rape.

34:02

Sorry, I forgot to mention the other

34:04

ones were assault and sexual portion in relation to

34:06

the other woman. But

34:09

and the prosecutor said,

34:12

I have reviewed the interview with women,

34:14

with the woman

34:15

in relation to this so

34:17

called lesser rape. There

34:20

is nothing that is

34:23

not credible about the account, but there

34:25

is nothing in the account that is

34:27

a criminal

34:28

offense. that was the

34:30

most

34:30

senior prosecutor in Sweden. What

34:32

happened then, there was a poll politician.

34:35

This was about ten days out of

34:37

the Swedish general election. A politician

34:39

for the Social Democratic Party who had been active

34:41

in the who had how

34:43

the role of gender,

34:48

ombudsman, who was also

34:50

an attorney, then took on

34:52

the two women as

34:54

his clients. and contacted

34:57

a separate

34:58

prosecutor's

35:00

office.

35:02

They kind of take test

35:04

cases based in Gossenburg. And he pitched

35:06

this case to the senior prosecutor there, and

35:08

then she took it up. Her name was Mariani.

35:11

and throughout that period that Marianne was

35:14

heading up the case,

35:16

she

35:16

refused to question Julian.

35:19

Now imagine this, a sexual assault a

35:22

sexual assault lesser rape

35:24

and so on case,

35:27

where the chief investigator

35:30

who was a prosecutor refuses

35:32

to question Julian.

35:34

and since And

35:36

since we've

35:36

learned a lot of things

35:38

since

35:38

we've learned the content of those text

35:41

messages where the woman with

35:43

the with the

35:44

more serious charge sorry, not

35:47

charge. Even I say it. You see it?

35:49

So it's Yeah.

35:50

Handsight. Right. Right. It's so precious

35:52

to say Yeah. She

35:55

says, I don't want to

35:57

accuse Julian of anything. The police

35:59

are

35:59

trying to

36:02

grab him and

36:02

I I'm being railroaded.

36:04

This was in her contemporaneous text

36:06

message. Oh,

36:07

wow. Which well, how

36:09

how was it how was it that that both of these

36:11

charges were brought about? simultaneously because

36:14

that also seems Well, yes. It's

36:16

like what's going on here? because I presume these

36:18

women didn't know

36:20

each other. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but and so you think,

36:22

well, it seems a bit

36:23

too fortuitous that both of these

36:26

events happened at the same

36:28

time, and

36:30

then so soon after the other string of events that you described.

36:32

So obviously, you know, there's a bit

36:34

of smoke there and, of course, we're

36:36

also

36:36

debating whether or not there's fire

36:39

where they're smoke. So that's that's a difficult But what's your understanding

36:41

of how it is that both of

36:43

these charges emerge simultaneous charges?

36:48

Allegory.

36:48

Yeah. Yeah. These allegations.

36:52

Yeah. You know,

36:53

they they they didn't know

36:55

each other. They matched on one

36:57

occasion. They knew that

37:00

they the second

37:01

woman contacted the first one,

37:04

and

37:04

then they spoke to each other and

37:06

they found out they had both

37:08

slept with Julian and then

37:10

they both went that's

37:12

their story that they went to the police because

37:14

they wanted an HIV test because

37:16

he had stopped with them in this this short

37:18

period. Okay. I don't I don't

37:21

I don't see

37:24

any point

37:24

in me speculating about

37:27

that.

37:27

Yeah.

37:28

You know, what I I can speak

37:31

to is the extraordinary

37:34

behavior

37:34

by the Swedish authorities conjunction

37:38

with

37:38

the British authorities. So since Well,

37:41

can

37:41

you speculate about the

37:43

motivation of the of the

37:46

second Swedish agent, so to

37:48

speak, who took on the two women as

37:50

clients and who had a political stake in

37:52

the issue. what exactly was she up to and why? And why didn't

37:54

she want to question? It was a man. It was a

37:56

man. His name was Klaus Borys.

37:58

Oh, I'm

37:59

sorry. And It was

38:01

a close call in that general election

38:03

in Sweden, and he was tipped

38:05

to be the new justice minister

38:07

if they won the case. I mean, if they won

38:09

the election, sorry. And

38:12

incidentally -- Mhmm. -- one of the two women

38:14

was also running for politics.

38:16

So in that same election

38:18

for for a local seat, And

38:20

she actually there

38:23

are text messages as as well

38:25

between the women where they're talking

38:27

about that

38:27

that they can get money

38:29

if they tell

38:30

their story and stuff. So it's

38:32

a little bit I see.

38:34

So there's lots of moral hazard involved in many different directions.

38:37

So let me summarize the story so

38:39

far, and you tell me if

38:41

if I've got it essentially

38:43

correct. So WikiLeaks

38:45

is founded. There's a

38:47

treasure trove of

38:50

documents published. but say exposing the secrets of many

38:52

powerful agencies and people

38:54

who might have wanted those secrets to

38:56

be kept silent.

38:59

Coincidentally, at the same time,

39:01

as the publication occurs on a

39:03

scale that's here to

39:05

for impossible technically, There are

39:08

allegations brought about against your

39:10

husband in Sweden, which is

39:12

the capital, let's say, of

39:14

the ideology that makes such

39:16

allegations possible at a time that's

39:18

extremely fortuitous

39:20

for the people who

39:22

whose interests are

39:23

threatened by the leaks

39:25

and whose interests are also

39:27

furthered personally and politically by the fact of

39:29

the allegations in Sweden itself. And

39:32

then despite the fact

39:34

that no charges are brought against your husband. The

39:36

UK justice system decides

39:38

that he should be validly ex

39:41

tradited even though they recognize simultaneously

39:43

that the fact that that is a

39:45

legal necessity is a violation of

39:47

a more fundamental legal principle, which they decide

39:49

not to enforce in the singular case of your

39:52

husband. And then as

39:54

a consequence,

39:54

bail

39:56

and heads for the Ecuadorian

39:58

embassy. And

39:59

then do you think that

40:02

decision was justifiable to

40:04

jump bail? let's say, and why did

40:06

he do it? And then why,

40:08

of all places, the

40:10

Ecuadorian

40:10

embassy? Well,

40:12

why the Ecuadorian embassy? It was because Ecuador

40:14

at the time had taken a

40:18

very sort

40:20

of

40:20

independent sovereign position.

40:24

These are the the United States.

40:26

So the United States had had

40:29

its biggest naval base, I

40:31

think, in Ecuador, in the

40:33

world of at least in

40:35

Latin America, in Ecuador, and they

40:37

had kicked out the US base

40:39

and also a very kind of

40:42

it's

40:43

a proud position.

40:46

They

40:46

said, well, you can have your

40:48

case here if we can have our base in

40:50

Miami. So they were they were changing the rules of

40:53

the geopolitical game. And

40:56

so

40:56

i'm so this this

40:58

Bolzia

40:59

attitude of the president at the

41:02

time, Casa Liqueur,

41:06

suggested that they

41:06

would they would be willing to protect

41:09

Julian. And Julian went into into the

41:11

embassy on the nineteenth of

41:13

June twenty twelve. and

41:16

he had exhausted all his

41:19

domestic remedies in the United

41:21

Kingdom. The United Kingdom was

41:24

giving just a few days before

41:26

he would he would be

41:28

taken off to Sweden. In

41:30

Sweden, you have an extraordinary pre

41:34

trial detention

41:36

regime.

41:36

So it would make he

41:38

would be in prison from the

41:41

moment he arrived in Sweden even though he

41:43

wasn't charged. And

41:45

interestingly, because Sweden is is

41:47

very interesting country, and they they kind of

41:49

play the stats. So I

41:51

think I don't know it's still true now, but

41:53

for example, they have very

41:56

low or at least they did

41:57

a few years ago. one

41:59

of

42:00

the the shortest sentence

42:04

times for

42:06

convicted prisoners

42:06

ah And

42:08

that was partly explained because

42:10

they also had the longest pretrial detention

42:15

time so that by the time they were convicted, they

42:17

had already served, you

42:20

know, their their their potential

42:22

sentence. So Julien

42:24

would be going into a Swedish

42:26

prison in a

42:27

country where he didn't speak the

42:29

language. But most importantly, Sweden

42:32

sweden had

42:34

a

42:35

rendition to asylum seekers. This is

42:37

one of the

42:39

most egregious cases of

42:42

of extraordinary

42:44

extraordinary rendition, in which

42:47

two asylum seekers were taken

42:50

on a CIA flight in Sweden

42:51

where were handed over by

42:54

Swedish authorities

42:55

to the CIA where they

42:57

were flown to Egypt which was our

42:59

country of origin, and they were tortured. And then eventually, they were

43:01

able to take their cases to the

43:03

Human Rights Committee at the

43:06

United Nations. and they

43:08

won and the also

43:12

the the torture committee found

43:14

in their favor and said that the

43:16

that's Sweden had violated its obligations not

43:18

to hand over a person to the

43:20

country that where they they

43:22

risk being

43:23

tortured or killed. So

43:26

and on top of that, of

43:28

all the extradition cases that

43:31

had gone before

43:32

from the year two thousand,

43:36

Sweden had extradited

43:38

every single person that the

43:40

US had asked for. So the

43:42

u Sweden was in a

43:44

you know, Sweden has this self image and it also has

43:47

amazing marketing in the

43:49

world. It has you

43:53

know, this this image of fairness and so

43:55

on and you spoke to Swedes and they'd

43:57

say, oh, well, if he came here, of course, we

43:59

would,

43:59

you know, it would

44:02

be unthinkable. But what I've come

44:04

to learn with Julian is that the unsinkable becomes

44:06

reality when it comes

44:10

to him. he is he is It seems to happen all the time.

44:12

Well, they create this he he is an

44:14

exception to the rule,

44:14

but what's actually happening is that they're creating

44:16

a new rule with his exception. that

44:20

will then that is then normalized.

44:22

So if you look

44:24

at the the persecution that has

44:27

occurred against Julian over time,

44:30

Now you see a lot of

44:32

no platforming by PayPal for example, of

44:34

people with platforms that

44:37

are critical of for example,

44:39

or on Ukraine or whatever.

44:42

PayPal and Bank of America

44:44

and Visa and Mastercard for

44:48

the very first time in twenty ten, created

44:50

a banking

44:51

blockade against WikiLeaks. They blocked

44:54

WikiLeaks from receiving

44:56

-- Uh-huh. donations from

44:58

from people wanted

44:58

to donate because WikiLeaks

45:00

was, you know,

45:03

on a global scale, this

45:06

great new phenomenon. And

45:08

Bouygues is always just

45:08

That's an appallingly that's

45:11

an appallingly fascist pressing. And

45:13

and it started -- Yes. -- to start

45:16

reflected recently in Canada with the

45:18

government's decision there to seize the

45:20

bank accounts on the entire

45:22

financial operations of anyone

45:24

who they deemed inappropriate in

45:26

relationship

45:26

to their donations to the

45:29

Trump or Bonvoy, which was for

45:31

very much a tempest to the t part. Yes. It was was the most utterly appalling

45:33

thing that are absolutely utterly

45:36

appalling Prime Minister has

45:38

ever done and that's really saying

45:40

something because he's a real piece of

45:42

work. And so, yeah,

45:44

this this collusion of

45:46

corporate enterprise and

45:48

government in relationship to

45:50

personal finance. And the

45:52

funding of, let's say, political or

45:54

journalistic causes is unbelievably

45:56

dire threat. And so, okay.

45:58

So, Julian presumed

45:59

that if he went to Sweden

46:02

to face these allegations,

46:04

which were of

46:05

insufficient magnitude

46:08

and

46:08

credibility to

46:10

result in formal charges that

46:13

the consequence of that would be his immediate imprisonment for an

46:15

indeterminate amount of time and

46:17

the overwhelming probability of

46:20

being extradited

46:22

to

46:22

the US. Now we might say

46:24

you made a case for why that was a credible

46:26

concern and also for a case

46:28

why Ecuador was willing to protect him

46:31

Why were the Americans

46:33

after them? And to

46:35

what degree, again, we have

46:37

the mystery here, right,

46:39

which is, well, Assange is operating on a

46:41

scale that's novel. And you said yourself

46:44

that's a consequence of the novel

46:46

interpretation of

46:48

his radically advanced

46:50

computer programming skills, and

46:53

the international horizon of journalism

46:55

that that instantly opens up

46:57

that he pioneered. And The

46:59

danger for him, of course, is that, well,

47:01

when you're uncovering everyone's

47:04

secrets, you can make an awful lot

47:06

of enemies and the probability that at least one set of those

47:08

enemies is going to successfully take you

47:10

out, especially giving given

47:12

that

47:13

they're operating with immense

47:15

resources is extremely high and he's also a test case

47:17

and an exception and almost

47:19

necessarily so because what he's doing has

47:21

never been done before.

47:24

And so it's not surprising it produces legal conundrums. Alright.

47:26

So the Swedes go after him on spacious

47:28

grounds attempting to denigrate his

47:32

reputation There's moral hazard involved on behalf of the

47:34

accusers, both

47:34

politically and personally. And at

47:37

the same time, there's

47:40

a pronounced threat lurking in the US. Now the Americans were

47:42

ambivalent about this as I read in the

47:44

bio because the Obama

47:46

administration had thought

47:48

about prosecuting or at least charging Julian,

47:52

but had decided against it because they thought

47:55

it would violate It

47:57

would pose a threat to the integrity of

47:59

the press and

47:59

violate the constitution, which seems like a

48:02

relevant issue here. But

48:04

the charges were eventually brought forth

48:06

nonetheless. And it also seems interestingly

48:08

enough that it didn't really

48:10

matter whether the Democrats or the

48:12

Republicans were in charge The Americans

48:14

at the highest level of state

48:16

authority were highly inclined

48:18

to make

48:19

life very difficult for your

48:21

husband practically and legally and to prosecute them in

48:23

some sense to the fullest extent of the

48:25

law. And so seventh first

48:28

there was a first charge that had to

48:31

do with password cracking or sharing

48:33

if I have got that right. But

48:35

then there were seventeen more

48:37

charges developed. And

48:39

so you have another situation where there where

48:41

a reasonable and uninformed outside

48:44

observer might say, well, good god,

48:46

you know, the UK's

48:48

after them, the Swedes are after them, the

48:50

Americans are after them, and not just on

48:52

one charge, on

48:54

eighteen charges, and these charges carry with them. I think a maximum life's

48:56

a maximum sentence of a hundred and seventy

48:58

years. And so there just has to

49:02

be something here lurking under the surface that's just not

49:04

kosher. And so

49:05

tell me what

49:07

the Americans are

49:09

claiming. And also

49:12

why even in the face of those

49:14

claims, which are repetitive and

49:16

constant and being pursued for a very

49:18

long time, why you're on board

49:20

with his defense, both ethic

49:23

well, ethically,

49:23

practically and personally.

49:26

So

49:26

what are the charges? What are

49:28

the Americans allocating? Alleging? Okay. So,

49:30

yes, the Obama administration

49:32

decided not to charge Julian, but they

49:35

they only decided that

49:38

in twenty thirteen, Julian had already been in

49:40

the embassy for a year. And

49:43

as part of the when they announced that they weren't going

49:45

to charge him over the manning

49:48

leaks, they did it through his

49:50

spokesperson called Matthew Miller. And

49:52

he said, as

49:53

you said that they weren't willing to charge him because there

49:55

was no way to

49:58

differentiate what Julien and WikiLeaks

49:59

had done even

50:02

even with the same

50:03

publications and

50:06

what the guardian, the telegraph,

50:10

New York Times and so on had also done.

50:12

And then Matthew Miller also

50:14

said, Julian Assange is not

50:16

a hacker. He's a publisher. So

50:20

they had, by then, all the

50:22

evidence because Chelsea

50:24

Manning had just been through her court

50:26

marshal, and all the evidence had been presented

50:29

at the court martial. And

50:32

and so

50:32

they, you know, they have the the full

50:34

information. They took a position And at

50:37

the end of his presidency, Obama also commuted

50:39

Chelsea Manning sentence. So

50:40

that was their political position

50:43

of the Obama administration. What

50:46

happened? Well, the charges The charge the

50:48

single charge

50:50

that was initially brought was brought

50:53

in

50:53

twenty eighteen. and

50:55

that was brought in

50:56

the context of what

50:59

we've

50:59

since learned

51:02

was a complete obsession by the CIA into

51:06

in he Julien and WikiLeaks.

51:09

So as soon as Trump entered

51:11

in office with

51:13

Helix after a month or

51:16

two, published what

51:18

it called fault

51:18

seven, which was about

51:20

it was handbooks

51:23

about the the

51:24

the

51:26

the CIA's

51:28

hacking

51:32

unit,

51:33

which

51:35

disclose

51:37

things like their

51:40

capabilities of, you know,

51:42

using exports. So using

51:45

Android

51:45

phones or iPhones and

51:47

using the the vulnerabilities

51:51

in those in

51:53

those phones

51:54

and computers

51:56

in order to access them

51:58

and take over

51:59

the the the

52:02

computer. And The US government a few years before had

52:04

committed to if it found a

52:06

vulnerability to let

52:10

the the companies know so that they could be fixed because there's

52:12

security risks, which anyone

52:15

can really take

52:16

ah exploit. Mhmm.

52:18

And it

52:20

also

52:20

revealed, for example, that the US, that

52:22

the CIA had the capacity

52:26

to also control

52:28

cars. Imagine

52:29

how undetectable

52:32

assassinations can take place

52:35

in that context. So the CIA

52:37

was livid. And and in

52:40

last last

52:40

year, there was an investigative piece

52:44

published by three investigative journalists,

52:46

national security journalists based

52:49

in DC. And they had

52:51

over thirty sources within

52:54

the National Security Establishment in the US. And

52:57

they

52:57

were

53:00

people in

53:00

the CIA, and then also named

53:04

sources. So imagine thirty.

53:06

And they spoke

53:08

to these investigative journalists

53:10

about what had happened during

53:13

the Trump. uro.

53:14

And

53:15

they disclosed

53:16

that there were

53:18

plans not just

53:21

to kidnapped and rendition Julian, but also

53:24

to

53:24

assassinate him. And one of the

53:26

conundrums that the justice

53:30

department faced or that

53:32

the administration faced was that there were

53:34

no charges against Julian. And so what

53:36

do they do if they kidnap him? Yeah. You

53:38

might call that a conundrum. Right.

53:40

They take kidnapped him. They take him to a black side, oh,

53:42

hold on. Well, there are no charges against

53:44

him. Well, we better conjure up

53:47

some charges. So they they

53:50

then brought a

53:51

charge in, I think it's March

53:53

twenty eighteen, which was the single

53:55

computer charge. Now, the

53:57

single computer charge

53:59

is not

54:00

even a what

54:04

they

54:04

alleged is that there was

54:06

a online chat

54:08

between Chelsea Manning and someone

54:10

who they say is Julian,

54:12

but they can't prove,

54:16

in which Chelsea Manning says, I have

54:18

a hash, which is not a

54:20

a password,

54:22

a hash. yeah

54:24

I have half a hash. Can

54:27

you help me

54:28

help me

54:29

Anyway,

54:31

it's not about It's

54:33

not a password. I'm

54:34

not a technical person. But

54:37

basically, the

54:38

purpose according to the US

54:40

the

54:41

purpose of eventually cracking the

54:43

password.

54:43

There was no attempt to crack crack the

54:46

password, and it was Chelsea Manning

54:48

asking for

54:50

help. and which didn't result in an

54:54

attempt. The

54:55

ah purpose

54:57

was so that Chelsea Manning

54:59

could login with a different login in order to

55:01

hide her identity. It

55:02

wasn't to access this

55:05

is the US's case. It

55:07

wasn't to access information because she

55:10

already had access to all that information. In

55:12

fact,

55:12

she had access to top secret information,

55:14

which she didn't leak. But they're

55:17

saying that Julian or someone

55:19

they say is Julian, agreed to

55:21

try

55:21

to help her hide her identity, which

55:23

is what journalists do all

55:25

the time. Advise

55:28

sources about how to stay safe

55:30

from detection. That is their big

55:33

their big

55:34

compute computer crime

55:36

charge. Now just to put things in

55:38

context

55:38

Okay. So that is the first charge. Yep. Sure.

55:40

Go ahead. That is a

55:41

five year charge. Julian faces a

55:44

hundred and seventy five years, and they

55:46

use that charge as a PR

55:48

exercise in order to say, oh,

55:50

look, he's different

55:52

from journalists. because there is this

55:54

computer charge. And it's, you know, when the New York

55:56

Times almost

55:57

gleefully saying, well, you know, he's been charged, but not

55:59

for something

56:02

that would affect us. That was before they introduced the

56:05

seventeen charges under the espionage act,

56:07

but they fundamentally misunderstood the

56:11

computer charge, but I think they didn't even care because it was just a way

56:13

of putting a wedge between themselves and

56:16

Wihiliks. But after those seventeen

56:18

charges were

56:20

introduced, under the espionage

56:21

act. This was about a month after

56:23

Julian was arrested. He he

56:27

The New York Times put out another editorial in

56:30

which they said that the case against

56:32

Julian Assange strikes at the heart

56:34

of the first amendment. Washington Post

56:36

has also put one out. And

56:38

in fact, all the, you know, the press freedom

56:40

groups, the human rights groups, they're all on this

56:42

sorry. They're all on the same side.

56:45

in relation to that the case should be dropped and it's

56:47

in a complete outrage. We'll

56:49

get right back to

56:51

the Jordan Peterson Podcast just

56:53

a moment. First, we like to tell you about

56:56

Elysium Health. Elysium is

56:57

dedicated to tackling the biggest

56:59

challenge in health, aging.

57:01

Their flagship product basis

57:04

focuses on NAD supplementation.

57:06

NAD is found in every single

57:08

cell of your body and is responsible

57:10

for creating energy in regulating hundreds of

57:12

cell functions. But the body

57:14

doesn't have an endless supply of NAD.

57:16

In fact, levels decline naturally

57:18

as

57:19

you age. basis helps replenish youthful

57:21

levels of NAD. Our very own

57:23

doctor Jordan Peterson and his daughter

57:25

Mikaela have reported major improvements in

57:27

mood and energy levels since

57:29

using basis. Alexium has sold over

57:32

three and a half million bottles of this

57:34

supplement alone. Many customers

57:36

report benefits such as

57:38

sustained and maintained energy

57:40

levels, less general tiredness and

57:42

fatigue, more satisfying workouts and

57:44

support and covery from workouts, healthy skin, general

57:46

health and wellness, plus

57:48

it's easy. Just take two capsules a

57:50

day to promote healthy age. Go

57:52

to tribe

57:54

basis dot com slash Jordan and enter code JBP twenty

57:56

five at checkout to save twenty five

57:58

percent off basis monthly subscriptions

58:00

as well as other Alethia

58:02

Health supplements. That's tri

58:04

basis dot com slash jordon. Enter code

58:06

JBP twenty five for twenty five

58:08

percent

58:10

off.

58:12

Right. Well, it looks to me.

58:14

Well, it looks to me like

58:16

there's a fair bit

58:18

of pragmatic strategic

58:20

thinking going on here, which is,

58:23

well well, you could make

58:24

a case that Assange's activities partly

58:28

because they're so novel and so international

58:30

and on

58:30

such a large

58:32

scale raise a variety

58:34

of security concerns and legal issues

58:37

and that's troublesome to many powerful

58:40

players. And why wouldn't

58:42

they attempt to tango

58:45

him up as much as possible in as many

58:47

legal webs as possible in some

58:49

sense regardless of whether or not

58:51

that would ever result

58:53

in conviction because He could

58:55

easily be dragged as he has been

58:58

through an incredibly brutal

59:00

self

59:00

defense process that in all

59:03

likelihood would take at minimum a

59:05

deck paid and at maximum longer than

59:07

that. And so you can

59:09

imagine strategically that there's almost no risk at all

59:11

to the people who are bringing forward

59:13

these charges because they can parcel out the

59:15

duties of keeping your husband in a spider's

59:18

web for the rest of

59:20

his life without

59:22

any risk to themselves

59:24

whatsoever. And so it seems

59:25

to be almost inevitable that

59:27

this would occur as a

59:29

consequence again of the scale

59:32

and by

59:32

which he was operating and the novelty of

59:34

the environment that he had produced

59:36

and I'm not trying to justify it in the least, but I'm

59:38

trying again to put myself in the position of those who are bringing

59:41

about the allegations. What's the

59:43

cost to them? Well,

59:46

some government money is going to be spent. Some people are gonna

59:48

be specializing in his prosecution. That's

59:50

not much of a cost. The cost to

59:52

you and Julian is your your whole

59:55

life in some real sense, but they bear

59:58

virtually none

59:58

of the weight of this

1:00:00

and

1:00:00

have managed or have they

1:00:02

have they managed in some sense to

1:00:05

six successfully impede the operation of

1:00:08

Wikipedia or have they, in fact, as a

1:00:10

consequence of

1:00:12

this, prosecution

1:00:12

BROUGHT

1:00:14

EVEN MORE ATTENTION TO WICKYNEAKS. OPERATIONS

1:00:16

AND MADE IT

1:00:17

MORE Sorry. WICKYNEAKS. OPERATION

1:00:19

AND MADE IT EVEN

1:00:22

MORE six successful and widely known than it would have otherwise be. So I'm

1:00:24

curious, do you think that their actions are

1:00:26

counterproductive even in relationship to

1:00:28

their own

1:00:30

goals? I think their

1:00:30

actions are counterproductive, but in a sense

1:00:32

that I don't it isn't cost free to

1:00:34

them to do what they're doing. They

1:00:37

have to

1:00:38

corrupt their own

1:00:40

norm system

1:00:41

in a very public way. Yeah.

1:00:43

But that's a long term problem, man.

1:00:46

That's a long

1:00:48

term problem. and and lots of organizations are facing

1:00:50

that problem now. I mean, I see that again

1:00:52

in the actions of the Canadian government. I

1:00:54

mean, what they've

1:00:56

done is absolutely reprehensible speaking

1:00:58

in the medium

1:00:58

and long term. But from a

1:01:01

short term instrumental perspective,

1:01:06

then, you know, hypothetically, the

1:01:08

advantages outweigh the

1:01:10

disadvantages.

1:01:11

So and you

1:01:12

know, shallow actors act shallowly. And so

1:01:16

I

1:01:16

agree that,

1:01:17

well, let's make the case, for

1:01:19

example, that The New York

1:01:22

Times is correct and that

1:01:24

these

1:01:24

investigations constitute a real threat

1:01:27

to the integrity of the press

1:01:30

mean, obviously, that's a catastrophe because the press is one thing

1:01:32

that keeps the potential

1:01:34

overreach and tyranny of

1:01:37

the government and big business and their collusion at

1:01:39

bay. And if you interfere with that, then you

1:01:42

risk destabilizing the entire

1:01:44

society. So, obviously, that's

1:01:48

a risk. My point was more that the persons involved

1:01:50

in this do not bear

1:01:52

anywhere near the same risk or cause

1:01:54

that you

1:01:56

and and and

1:01:57

and and and

1:01:58

Julian Bear. They're not

1:01:59

in the same league. I mean, they

1:02:01

can do this professionally in some

1:02:03

sense while you're roasted

1:02:06

over slow fire professionally,

1:02:08

personally, financially with regard

1:02:10

to reputation, socially.

1:02:12

And then there's also a fair

1:02:16

bit of a

1:02:16

genuine mortal risk

1:02:18

in play. You know,

1:02:19

I've met probably

1:02:20

now a hundred and fifty people who've

1:02:24

been tarned and feathered

1:02:26

by various bad

1:02:27

actors who bore very little

1:02:29

consequence for their

1:02:32

tiring

1:02:32

and feathering, and every single one of them,

1:02:35

including people who I would have regarded

1:02:37

as some of the most brave

1:02:40

and emotionally stable people I've ever

1:02:42

met, and I've met a lot of

1:02:44

people, have reacted

1:02:46

to that pillaring

1:02:48

and social exclusion and

1:02:51

appalling mobbing with

1:02:52

about the same degree of

1:02:55

severity from the psychological perspective that they might have

1:02:57

experienced had they been diagnosed or a

1:02:59

close one to them diagnosed with

1:03:01

a fatal illness. And

1:03:04

one of the things that I did uncover

1:03:06

more as I was investigating your situation

1:03:08

and your husband's situation is that

1:03:11

your team has made

1:03:13

the claim that mister Assange's

1:03:15

mental health has been severely

1:03:17

compromised and I find

1:03:19

that highly probable virtually everyone that I've talked to who's

1:03:21

been through a tiny fraction of

1:03:24

what you guys have been

1:03:26

through has variant

1:03:28

of post traumatic stress disorder as

1:03:30

a consequence. You know, and that might

1:03:32

only be uni

1:03:34

only be a university professor

1:03:37

whose face four allegations of some kind

1:03:39

of ideological impropriety in the student

1:03:42

press and the local newspaper

1:03:44

and maybe peripheral article on a state or national

1:03:46

level. And then the what

1:03:48

would you say? The developing mistrust of

1:03:50

his peers that goes on for a couple

1:03:52

of months Compared

1:03:55

to what you guys have been through, that's a tempest in tea pot, but

1:03:57

that's enough to really

1:03:58

really bring harm to

1:03:59

people. And

1:04:02

It's part of an indication of just how serious

1:04:04

this culture of unwarranted

1:04:06

accusation and weaponization of

1:04:09

the investigative process really

1:04:12

is. People people who are missing might think, well, who cares? You know,

1:04:14

this is Julie and Assange.

1:04:16

What's the probability that

1:04:18

something like that will happen

1:04:20

to me or anyone I care about.

1:04:22

And I would say, the

1:04:24

way things are going, the

1:04:27

probability that that

1:04:29

may happen to you is

1:04:31

increasing dramatically, but even more

1:04:34

particularly, the fact that it's

1:04:36

happening to many people and

1:04:38

extremely publicly is already

1:04:40

making you muzzle your

1:04:42

willingness to speak freely and

1:04:44

act truly in a manner that's so

1:04:46

pernicious and pervasive that you can

1:04:48

hardly even imagine it. And so

1:04:49

for every one person that's

1:04:52

persecuted successfully on the

1:04:54

reputational front, like

1:04:56

your husband, there's probably ten thousand people who decide that it's probably

1:04:58

just better to shut up and take

1:05:00

it. And that really does pose

1:05:01

a signal threat to the integrity of the

1:05:03

state that's predicated

1:05:06

on free association and free expression. So it's

1:05:08

rather

1:05:09

appalling to to say

1:05:11

the least. And so Let's

1:05:14

go

1:05:14

through the other, if

1:05:15

you can, to some degree.

1:05:18

The other

1:05:18

charges, obviously, they're of

1:05:21

less significance than the original

1:05:24

charge I would think because otherwise the original charge wouldn't have

1:05:26

been the charge that was originally laid. But

1:05:28

what other accusations have

1:05:31

emerged?

1:05:31

And why do

1:05:34

Legacy news

1:05:34

media sources like The New York

1:05:36

Times regard those charges that is

1:05:38

also a threat to their operations.

1:05:41

Well,

1:05:41

actually, the the the first

1:05:44

charge, the the computer

1:05:46

conspiracy

1:05:46

to commit computer

1:05:49

intrusion, it's called that is the the

1:05:51

weakest, the, you know, the it

1:05:54

is basically a a made up

1:05:56

charge. And

1:05:58

and Because

1:05:59

the

1:05:59

technically, what they were from a

1:06:01

technical perspective, what they said

1:06:04

was supposed to be

1:06:06

the goal is the technical impossibility.

1:06:09

but that came out during the

1:06:11

extradition hearings. And what they did

1:06:13

in relation to this first, I'm still talking about

1:06:15

the computer charge, was they

1:06:18

introduced a second superseding indictment

1:06:20

halfway through the extradition hearing.

1:06:22

So the

1:06:24

US has been moving the

1:06:26

Gulf posts constantly.

1:06:27

And with this

1:06:28

second superseding

1:06:32

indictment, They said

1:06:33

that they had they

1:06:35

basically relied on a

1:06:38

new witness.

1:06:40

They're a key witness who was

1:06:42

an Islamic man who

1:06:45

they they made he

1:06:48

had been flown to Virginia. It given

1:06:52

his testimony to the

1:06:52

to the grand

1:06:53

jury, and so they had

1:06:56

produced this

1:06:58

second superseding indictment.

1:07:00

And in there, they didn't introduce

1:07:02

more charges. They just said, look,

1:07:04

we have more circumstantial evidence suggests

1:07:08

that it says that Julian

1:07:12

allegedly

1:07:14

was

1:07:17

instructing

1:07:18

happy hackers. Okay. So all this new stuff that

1:07:20

they introduced in the

1:07:23

hackers second superseding indictment relying on

1:07:25

this testimony from the Islamic

1:07:27

man, Sigger Dirthordson.

1:07:30

Body the body a year later

1:07:32

in twenty twenty

1:07:34

sorry, twenty twenty one. This

1:07:37

very same witness Then

1:07:40

spoke

1:07:40

to Icelandic. The Icelandic

1:07:42

press and said,

1:07:43

no. What's in

1:07:45

that second superseding indictment? is

1:07:47

not

1:07:47

what I told the FBI. And in fact, it

1:07:50

misrepresents what I said.

1:07:52

So basically,

1:07:54

the the Department of misled

1:07:56

the British courts. And

1:07:59

and the witness

1:08:02

on which on whom they relied has retracted the

1:08:04

the well, what they say

1:08:06

is his his testimony. So that's

1:08:08

been out there for, you know, anyway,

1:08:11

so that's that because it's such a weak charge,

1:08:13

they needed to try to beef it up. And then they went to this man who's

1:08:16

also convicted fraudster

1:08:20

and and a convicted pedophile

1:08:23

and so on and

1:08:27

and also diagnosed with, say, competency?

1:08:29

Or what is the less yeah.

1:08:32

Anyway

1:08:36

Well, what? That's not such a

1:08:38

bad combination. Fraudster, pedophile, psychopath. Why wouldn't you regard him as a credible

1:08:40

woman? The things the way things are

1:08:42

actually because he was convicted of some of

1:08:46

Yes. Well, he has defrouded with Helix. And

1:08:48

with Helix had

1:08:49

had taken him to court and he

1:08:51

had been in prison. So it's not

1:08:53

like he didn't

1:08:54

have him, you know, a motivation there either.

1:08:56

And they gave him

1:08:59

immunity from prosecution. And

1:09:02

and now anyway, so that's the one

1:09:03

charge. Now that the the seventeen

1:09:06

charges under the espionage

1:09:08

act, now there's quite a lot

1:09:10

of interest in the espionage act,

1:09:12

but Julian is

1:09:14

he's not there's no allegation he's a spy per

1:09:16

se. The

1:09:20

the US

1:09:20

says

1:09:23

that he

1:09:24

received information,

1:09:26

the concerns national

1:09:30

security, and

1:09:30

he possessed that information

1:09:32

and he

1:09:33

made he communicated

1:09:36

that information to the public.

1:09:38

Those are the seventeen charges.

1:09:40

If you break it down, it's

1:09:42

forty four charges equivalent

1:09:44

to about forty years potential sentence for the

1:09:46

publication of of the collateral murder video. Five

1:09:49

charges in relation

1:09:52

to the state

1:09:54

department tables, which amount to fifty years, and the Iraq war logs and so on,

1:09:56

and and the

1:09:59

Afghan war logs

1:10:00

constitute

1:10:02

the rest. But this is what

1:10:05

there he's not being processed yet. They're really

1:10:07

throwing they're really throwing the book at him

1:10:09

in some sense. I mean, they have

1:10:11

so much They to so many things that he

1:10:13

published, that I just can't

1:10:16

imagine a

1:10:18

court case. that is addressing this because there's so

1:10:20

much for the prosecution to draw on

1:10:22

given the volume of the leaks

1:10:25

that they could break

1:10:27

Not even allegations of It's not the

1:10:29

volume. Okay. Go ahead. Not

1:10:31

the volume. They have an issue with. It is the volume. is

1:10:32

the fact that

1:10:34

the information is not no

1:10:37

defense information they say. So it could be just one document. Right. I guess

1:10:39

I was just

1:10:39

wondering if right. Right. But but

1:10:41

if you have seven hundred and fifty

1:10:44

thousand documents to

1:10:47

choose from, so to speak. You could imagine that

1:10:49

it could take you a very long time

1:10:51

in court to wander through all of

1:10:53

that and find the one document

1:10:55

that might be that might constitute

1:10:57

a smoking drug. even I'm just thinking about you guys being tangled up. No. But they

1:10:59

don't even need to do that.

1:11:01

They

1:11:02

don't even need to show

1:11:04

it. They just need

1:11:06

to say

1:11:06

this was classified. He published it. It is a like a strict right offense. And

1:11:08

because it's an espionage

1:11:10

act, so it is enacted originally

1:11:15

to prosecute spies or

1:11:16

at least it purported to do so,

1:11:18

but it was it was

1:11:19

worded very

1:11:22

broadly and

1:11:22

very vaguely because this

1:11:24

was enacted in nineteen seventeen, and

1:11:26

it was immediately used to

1:11:29

put dissidents,

1:11:32

critics of the US participation

1:11:34

in the first world war in

1:11:36

prison,

1:11:37

including Eugene Debs, And

1:11:39

so it was

1:11:40

immediately repurposed. Okay. But

1:11:42

then for

1:11:43

many years, it

1:11:46

was used to prosecute spies. And

1:11:48

if you're prosecuting spies, you don't give

1:11:50

them a defense. You don't give them a public interest defense

1:11:53

because it's

1:11:56

for spies. Right? There's no

1:11:57

public interest defense for a spy who's giving a

1:11:59

document to South

1:11:59

Africa, for

1:12:03

example. But

1:12:03

if you then use the

1:12:05

same statute and use it against

1:12:07

someone who's involved in journalistic

1:12:09

activity, who is publishing

1:12:12

the information, and you

1:12:14

say no, you have no public public interest defense because this is espionage

1:12:16

the entrance defense because this

1:12:18

is an sp

1:12:19

statute. So

1:12:21

this is one of the big arguments that we

1:12:23

are using in the extradition. So is this why the is this why the

1:12:25

New York Times

1:12:27

is concerned because that

1:12:29

the line between journalism and espionage is being, well, let's

1:12:31

say, blurred in a major

1:12:34

way.

1:12:34

Oh, the New York

1:12:37

time. What's their concern?

1:12:38

They've been concerned about this for

1:12:40

fifty years because the

1:12:41

US government under Nixon tried to use the

1:12:44

espionage act espionage

1:12:46

act in

1:12:46

relation to the Pentagon papers.

1:12:49

And at that point,

1:12:51

they decided against it.

1:12:53

The constitutional lawyers have been

1:12:55

warning since then that one day

1:12:57

there will come a US

1:12:59

administration that will be

1:13:01

willing to read the statute

1:13:04

in a way that you can prosecute a

1:13:06

publisher. And the New York Times is concerned

1:13:08

because the activity that

1:13:11

they describe as criminal which is

1:13:13

receiving information from a source and possessing imagine

1:13:15

just possessing information even if

1:13:18

you don't publish it. These

1:13:20

are all independent

1:13:23

independently charges hard

1:13:26

that that stand on their own, just possessing national security, national

1:13:29

defense information. It is worded

1:13:31

so broadly that

1:13:33

even in the extradition hearing, One of the

1:13:35

expert witnesses was a constitutional lawyer said,

1:13:38

well, even reading national defense

1:13:40

information is a violation

1:13:42

of the espionage act because that's how broadly it's worded. And

1:13:44

now it's finally been used

1:13:46

against a publisher for the

1:13:48

very first time and, of

1:13:50

course, that sets a precedent. Okay.

1:13:52

Okay. So you can see why the

1:13:54

New York Times is concerned. Okay. So and there's seventeen charges of this sort, which

1:13:57

is also going to be

1:13:59

a broad

1:13:59

concern to like

1:14:02

publishers even those are operating at

1:14:04

a lower scale. So just

1:14:06

out of curiosity, well,

1:14:08

not just because it's

1:14:10

it's not minimal. Why did you guys decide it would easier

1:14:13

in

1:14:16

some sense not

1:14:18

just to go to the US and slog this through in court it's

1:14:20

not like the pathway that

1:14:22

has opened up before you seems

1:14:27

to be to be

1:14:28

much easier or preferable.

1:14:30

I

1:14:30

mean, your husband's in

1:14:33

prison

1:14:33

and and not

1:14:35

a very good prison not

1:14:36

that there are very good

1:14:38

prisons and he's suffering immensely as a consequence and he's in

1:14:43

limbo and appears to me to be likely to remain there for

1:14:45

as long a time as

1:14:47

it's convenient and possible

1:14:49

for people to hold

1:14:52

them there I'm wondering why would

1:14:54

it be worse necessarily to accept the

1:15:00

extradition to go to

1:15:00

the US voluntarily and to to

1:15:03

raise money for the defense

1:15:04

and to fight

1:15:07

this out in court. I'm I'm

1:15:09

sure you've thought this through in great detail, but it isn't self evident

1:15:11

to me given that you're I mean, you're really between a rock and

1:15:13

a hard place,

1:15:14

but it isn't clear to me

1:15:15

that you've you've

1:15:18

picked the

1:15:19

softer rock. Well, it is it is the less bad solution. All

1:15:21

Julian is doing

1:15:23

is is fighting

1:15:24

all julian is doing is is

1:15:26

icing using the law to

1:15:28

fight

1:15:29

against what is a

1:15:31

political persecution. And the

1:15:33

only opportunity is going to

1:15:35

have to make that argument is the British courts. Because once he

1:15:37

comes to the United

1:15:38

States, he won't be able

1:15:42

to argue why he published, what has he published, the fact

1:15:44

that there are no harm has come

1:15:46

of it. He will he will

1:15:49

go into a Virginia

1:15:51

court, which is in close proximity

1:15:53

to CIA headquarters, the same CIA that

1:15:56

that caused it

1:15:59

to

1:15:59

assassinate him. under

1:16:00

the Trump administration. You know, this

1:16:02

is

1:16:02

this is the united the

1:16:05

United

1:16:05

States that have been

1:16:07

breaking the law

1:16:09

in order to

1:16:11

get their hands on Julian. And and

1:16:13

they have total control

1:16:16

over him. You're right. The

1:16:18

the prison situation in Belmarsh is bad.

1:16:20

It's very bad. I mean,

1:16:22

you know, during the COVID

1:16:24

period, it

1:16:25

was extremely difficult for

1:16:27

him, and he's his

1:16:29

his mental health

1:16:32

has,

1:16:32

head

1:16:34

at times,

1:16:36

been in a

1:16:38

very fragile state as it would for anyone who

1:16:41

was in isolation

1:16:44

like that, but

1:16:46

not just isolation. The sheer

1:16:49

injustice of of

1:16:52

this case

1:16:52

ah also.

1:16:53

No. And the uncertainty -- Yeah. -- that that's a

1:16:55

terrible thing. I mean, once you're sentenced in some real sense,

1:16:58

at

1:16:59

least you have at

1:17:01

meet you have

1:17:03

It's like the hammer has fallen, you know.

1:17:05

And it's it's it's better

1:17:07

in

1:17:07

many ways to have the hammer

1:17:09

fall than to be waiting for an

1:17:11

indeterminate hammer to fall forever.

1:17:14

That's that's an

1:17:14

almost unbearable psychological condition to be in. There

1:17:17

were indications, for example,

1:17:19

among the gay part population

1:17:22

in San Francisco at the height of the AIDS

1:17:25

epidemic, that people's some

1:17:27

people's mental health actually improved after

1:17:29

they were diagnosed with AIDS, because the uncertainty

1:17:31

about whether their behavior was going to result

1:17:33

in AIDS had been resolved. And so

1:17:36

the the fatal

1:17:39

catastrophe had arrived and its actuality

1:17:42

was better than its uncertain prediction.

1:17:44

And that's

1:17:45

an extreme case, but the

1:17:47

psychological literature's replete with sort

1:17:50

of example, and your husband's in the terrible

1:17:53

situation where he faces

1:17:55

indeterminate punishment for

1:17:57

indeterminate reasons for an indeterminate period of

1:17:59

time. And so But

1:18:01

again, I I wanna ask a bit more

1:18:03

because I'm still I'm still

1:18:05

confused. You haven't had a tremendous

1:18:07

amount of success in the English courts, and your husband prison even

1:18:10

though by all appearances

1:18:14

he shouldn't be

1:18:16

given that his sentence has already

1:18:18

been served and that the initial

1:18:21

Transgression

1:18:23

was of a relatively minor sort

1:18:25

given the circumstances, I would say,

1:18:27

I don't I still don't

1:18:29

exactly understand why you have more

1:18:31

discs trust of the American court system you do of the English

1:18:33

court system. Are you concerned that

1:18:35

that his that his

1:18:38

life will be in danger

1:18:40

in some more real sense than

1:18:42

it already is given what's happening to him in the UK? Oh, it's a combination

1:18:45

of

1:18:48

of fears fears I

1:18:50

don't have tremendous faith in the justice system full

1:18:55

stop. not

1:18:57

in the UK and and not in the

1:18:59

United States. This case is as political

1:19:02

as it gets.

1:19:04

And

1:19:05

quite aside from that, the

1:19:07

if

1:19:09

the to invested i

1:19:11

did Julian's extradited, he

1:19:12

may be well, he will be this is a

1:19:14

national security case. What do they do with national security defendants?

1:19:19

while they isolate them. And there are many ways of

1:19:21

putting a person in solitary confinement in the

1:19:23

US. They've perfected

1:19:26

that that on any given day, there

1:19:28

are about eighty thousand people

1:19:30

in some form of solitary confinement.

1:19:32

And then

1:19:34

they have reserve, a special form of solitary confinement, which is the most extreme one. called

1:19:36

special administrative measures. And

1:19:38

there are about fifty people

1:19:43

in the

1:19:43

whole of the United States that are placed under special

1:19:45

administrative measures. There's also

1:19:48

the federal

1:19:49

Supramax Prison,

1:19:52

ADS Florence, where

1:19:54

children is

1:19:55

likely to be

1:19:58

taken. Now, you you

1:19:59

don't these

1:19:59

these potential SAMs

1:20:03

or

1:20:05

ADS Florence that's

1:20:07

something that initially stopped

1:20:09

the UK courts from

1:20:12

ordering the extradition. In

1:20:15

fact, In January, last year, the the lowest

1:20:17

court ruled

1:20:18

that Julian should not be

1:20:21

extradited because if

1:20:23

he is extradited, he will be

1:20:25

most likely placed in conditions that will drive him to take his own

1:20:28

life. And the

1:20:30

the

1:20:31

extradition hearing hurt heard

1:20:36

multiple

1:20:36

experts who

1:20:37

had assessed Julian

1:20:40

and all reached the conclusion that

1:20:42

he was at high risk of of

1:20:44

taking his own life. If he if

1:20:46

he was placed in isolation like that, isolation

1:20:50

like that

1:20:51

why is he surviving in Belmarsh? Well, because he can

1:20:53

see me and the kids,

1:20:55

and we're able

1:20:57

to speak over the phone. Sam's, special

1:21:00

administrative measures, doesn't

1:21:02

even allow contact

1:21:04

with other prisoners

1:21:07

or prison guards, and you

1:21:09

have maybe fifteen or thirty minutes a month in which

1:21:11

you can choose to speak to your family

1:21:12

or or your

1:21:15

lawyer. These are

1:21:17

the most extreme. That's there.

1:21:19

And and who decides You've made a very credible case for why you're concerned. I understand.

1:21:21

And who decides whether you're

1:21:23

placed under trust? the

1:21:28

agencies, the CIA, and

1:21:29

so on. So Right. Right.

1:21:31

Right. And

1:21:32

that happens before

1:21:34

the trial. Yes. That happens

1:21:36

at at any stage.

1:21:38

So for example, the the alleged source of Vault seven,

1:21:40

Joshua Schulte, he's

1:21:43

been under Sam's for

1:21:47

years now.

1:21:48

And there are articles

1:21:49

about the conditions he he's

1:21:52

in, they're completely horrific.

1:21:54

and

1:21:54

he's had to prepare his case from

1:21:57

there. But quite aside from that, there

1:21:59

are two other, you know,

1:22:00

know enormously

1:22:02

significant reasons, which is Julian Kentmount a defense. He's, you know, he's

1:22:04

a foreigner. He's an Australian

1:22:06

who was publishing in the UK.

1:22:11

has no connection to the United States, and they want

1:22:13

to pluck him and put him in on trial

1:22:15

in the United States to face a hundred

1:22:17

and seventy five years. They say you have

1:22:19

no public interest sense. And

1:22:21

then another thing that they've said is that, well, we may argue that because

1:22:23

he's a foreign national, he does

1:22:26

not enjoy first amendment

1:22:28

rights. I mean,

1:22:30

what is that? If you're going to apply

1:22:32

your criminal laws extra territory,

1:22:34

and then you bring this

1:22:36

foreigner to your to your shores,

1:22:39

and then say, well, you don't have first amendment.

1:22:41

You don't enjoy constitutional rights

1:22:43

because you were foreigner

1:22:46

abroad. It

1:22:46

it's complete. Right. That's convenient.

1:22:49

Well, it's basically

1:22:49

one Tenable Bay. You see, with

1:22:52

the with the war on terror -- Right. --

1:22:54

they changed the rules. They said there are these.

1:22:56

It's exceptions. You have to carve these

1:22:58

exceptions where we're not well, we're kind of breaking international law, but

1:23:00

but we have

1:23:02

this little

1:23:03

way of doing it. And

1:23:06

so one of the main arguments

1:23:08

for not putting the Guantanamo Baby Tinnies on trial in

1:23:10

the United States is because then you kind of import

1:23:15

that system

1:23:15

of exception onto U. S.

1:23:17

jurisdiction. I mean, that's that's kind

1:23:19

of in the background. I see. And so

1:23:21

you think that's what's happening in the case

1:23:23

of your husband is that an

1:23:26

extension of the Guantanamo territory

1:23:28

itself, and thus establishing

1:23:30

also a very bad president

1:23:35

You said that he has been denied

1:23:36

a public interest defense. And is that

1:23:38

a consequence of the nature of

1:23:41

the charges? Is it is it such

1:23:43

that if you're charged under the espionage act specifically, you may

1:23:45

have explained this to me already, and I

1:23:47

may have missed it. If you're

1:23:49

charged under the espionage

1:23:52

act specifically, Are you then denied

1:23:54

prima facia, a public interest defense, which you would have if if you

1:23:56

were a journalist? No,

1:23:58

it's not there's no

1:24:00

there's

1:24:02

no definition of who's

1:24:06

a journalist.

1:24:07

The only factor that is taken

1:24:10

into account is whether you received, possessed,

1:24:12

and communicated that information. And because you're being

1:24:14

-- I

1:24:14

see. Understood. -- there's no exception for

1:24:17

journalists. There's no

1:24:19

exception for journalists. And --

1:24:21

Okay. Got it. Got

1:24:23

it. -- debate over the espionage act

1:24:27

and its constitutionality been there from the beginning for

1:24:29

over a hundred years. And some

1:24:32

people say that

1:24:34

the the whole statute is a

1:24:36

violation of the constitution. But it's never been

1:24:38

used. Right. Well, so that's also why

1:24:40

that's also why people, I would

1:24:43

say, on a personal level, in

1:24:46

the in the United States in particular, but maybe

1:24:48

around the world should also be concerned

1:24:50

about what's happening to your husband because,

1:24:53

of course, the situation with any with

1:24:55

any reasonable legal

1:24:56

tradition is that once a

1:24:58

president has

1:24:58

been established, which it would

1:25:01

be in the case of your

1:25:03

husband, It can be indefinitely, broadly applied to any number

1:25:05

of actors. And so, obviously, the New

1:25:07

York Times and

1:25:10

the Washington Post are precipitous

1:25:11

enough to see that threat being levied

1:25:14

against them, but that isn't necessarily

1:25:16

where it would

1:25:18

stop. Right? And that's particularly worrisome in

1:25:21

a case like we have in

1:25:23

the modern world where,

1:25:25

I mean, so for example,

1:25:27

As a Canadian, if if husband

1:25:28

is convicted, let's

1:25:30

say, eventually, or even

1:25:32

given that

1:25:33

he's being charged, if I

1:25:35

go to Wiki leaks

1:25:37

and I download one of the documents

1:25:39

that he's charged with promulgating illegally

1:25:45

am I now as egregious a violator of that statute

1:25:47

as he is? because I can't see how I

1:25:52

wouldn't be. Well, according

1:25:52

to the statute, yeah, but that's you don't have to

1:25:54

limit it to WikiLeaks. The New York Times publishes

1:25:59

National Security Defense national defense information

1:26:01

every day. They're unauthorized disclosures all the time because that is

1:26:03

what journalists do. Good

1:26:07

journalists at least.

1:26:08

at least, they

1:26:11

publish if it's in the public

1:26:13

interest. And with if you don't

1:26:15

have that ability, then you

1:26:17

basically do away with any serious

1:26:19

journalism full stop? Well, it's worse

1:26:20

than that now, I would

1:26:23

say, because the the

1:26:26

division line between public

1:26:28

citizen and journalist has also come

1:26:30

become extremely blurry. So for example, if

1:26:35

I go to the New York Times and I read an

1:26:37

article that has been published

1:26:39

without authorization and I

1:26:41

share it on Facebook

1:26:44

to my relatively

1:26:46

numerous followers, although that's not necessarily relevant, it could be with even a family member,

1:26:48

and by now a

1:26:50

journalist who's disclosing state secrets.

1:26:55

And the answer to that is by means clear because I'm

1:26:58

certainly publishing it. And

1:27:00

obviously,

1:27:00

everybody in

1:27:02

some real senses become their own publishing house in a line

1:27:04

of in in in a

1:27:06

world of radically accessible social media.

1:27:08

And so that should

1:27:10

make people very concerned because

1:27:12

Each of us is now

1:27:15

a relatively powerful journalist in our own right. So

1:27:18

whatever

1:27:19

happens to journalists, is

1:27:21

very much likely to be able to happen to the rest of us. Howard Bauchner:

1:27:23

Yeah, I mean, a tweet is a

1:27:25

is a publication.

1:27:28

There's there's court

1:27:31

rulings now that

1:27:33

that

1:27:36

are

1:27:37

already are creating already

1:27:40

creating president. And, of course, you know, it

1:27:42

it

1:27:42

goes to the very fact of

1:27:44

our ability to

1:27:46

be able to express ourselves as well because these platforms are

1:27:48

the new public square. Right?

1:27:51

But we don't understand

1:27:53

that public square.

1:27:55

We don't see what rules

1:27:58

are are and what, you know, political considerations are governing

1:28:00

political considering that

1:28:04

square. and

1:28:04

so we're at the mercy. And we don't know how to police

1:28:06

it either. We don't know how to police the square. Oh, we

1:28:09

can't even see. We can't even

1:28:11

see the whole

1:28:11

square. Right? because

1:28:14

we don't even enter into

1:28:15

into contact with, you know, some people in the other part of the

1:28:17

square that there's some invisible

1:28:19

wall between us where

1:28:23

we can't see each other's arguments. Mhmm. And

1:28:25

we're also interacting with agents

1:28:27

whose motivations and

1:28:30

identity not only do we not understand, but we

1:28:32

can't understand, and that would be the

1:28:34

case with anonymous actors, but even more

1:28:37

the case with

1:28:39

bots. And so The policing issue becomes extraordinarily

1:28:41

difficult, and I suppose that's part of the conundrum that you and your husband

1:28:43

face too because the

1:28:47

legal system paranoid though it may be and and

1:28:50

reactionary though it may be is also

1:28:54

trying to wrestle with the fact of the

1:28:56

radically increased journalistic ability

1:28:59

of the typical

1:29:02

citizen and exemplified obviously in the case of your husband

1:29:04

because he's such a powerful

1:29:06

user of this technology. And

1:29:10

so So

1:29:11

what do you think people who

1:29:13

are listening to this

1:29:15

podcast should conclude with regards

1:29:17

to what they think and

1:29:19

how they can bigger their actions? And

1:29:21

is there anything they could do that you would regard as ethical and

1:29:24

useful in relationship

1:29:26

to what

1:29:27

you're going through? Well,

1:29:30

I think

1:29:32

the first thing is

1:29:34

is to

1:29:34

understand that Julian is the

1:29:37

locus

1:29:38

of a battleground over

1:29:40

a narrative,

1:29:44

over who he is,

1:29:46

what he's done, what his what And where Helix

1:29:52

is what

1:29:52

he calls a rebel

1:29:54

library of Alexandria. The publications

1:29:57

of WikiLeaks

1:29:58

have been used in