Julian Assange’s Address to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, with Comments by Paul Craig Roberts

October 1, 2014

Chairman, esteemed members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ladies and gentlemen.
 
The transition from years of confinement in a maximum-security prison to standing here before the representatives of 46 nations and 700 million people is a profound and surreal shift.
 
The experience of isolation for years in a small cell is difficult to convey; it strips away one’s sense of self, leaving only the raw essence of existence.
 
I am not yet fully equipped to speak about what I have endured – the relentless struggle to stay alive, both physically and mentally, nor can i speak yet about the deaths by hanging, murder, and medical neglect of my fellow prisoners.
 
I apologise in advance if my words falter or if my presentation lacks the polish you might expect in such a distinguished forum.
 
Isolation has taken its toll, which I am trying to unwind, and expressing myself in this setting is a challenge.
 
However, the gravity of this occasion and the weight of the issues at hand compel me to set aside my reservations and speak to you directly. I have traveled a long way, literally and figuratively, to be before you today.
 
Before our discussion or answering any questions you might have, I wish to thank PACE for its 2020 resolution (2317), [https://pace.coe.int/en/files/28508/html], which stated that my imprisonment set a dangerous precedent for journalists and noted that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture called for my release.
 
I’m also grateful for PACE’s 2021 statement [https://pace.coe.int/en/news/8446/pace-general-rapporteur-expresses-se] expressing concern over credible reports that US officials discussed my assassination, again calling for my prompt release.
 
And I commend the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee for commissioning a renowned rapporteur, Sunna Ævarsdóttir, to investigate the circumstances surrounding my detention and conviction and the consequent implications for human rights.
 
However, like so many of the efforts made in my case – whether they were from parliamentarians, presidents, prime ministers, the Pope, UN officials and diplomats, unions, legal and medical professionals, academics, activists, or citizens – none of them should have been necessary.
 
None of the statements, resolutions, reports, films, articles, events, fundraisers, protests, and letters over the last 14 years should have been necessary. But all of them were necessary because without them I never would have seen the light of day.
 
This unprecedented global effort was needed because of the legal protections that did exist, many existed only on paper or were not effective in any remotely reasonable time frame.
 
I eventually chose freedom over unrealisable justice, after being detained for years and facing a 175 year sentence with no effective remedy. Justice for me is now precluded, as the US government insisted in writing into its plea agreement that I cannot file a case at the European Court of Human Rights or even a freedom of information act request over what it did to me as a result of its extradition request.
 
I want to be totally clear. I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today because after years of incarceration because I plead guilty to journalism. I plead guilty to seeking information from a source. I plead guilty to obtaining information from a source. And I plead guilty to informing the public what that information was. I did not plead guilty to anything else. I hope my testimony today can serve to highlight the weaknesses of the existing safeguards and to help those whose cases are less visible but who are equally vulnerable.
 
As I emerge from the dungeon of Belmarsh, the truth now seems less discernible, and I regret how much ground has been lost during that time period when expressing the truth has been undermined, attacked, weakened, and diminished.
 
I see more impunity, more secrecy, more retaliation for telling the truth and more self censorship. It is hard not to draw a line from the US government’s prosecution of me – its crossing the rubicon by internationally criminalising journalism – to the chilled climate for freedom of expression now.
 
When I founded WikiLeaks, it was driven by a simple dream: to educate people about how the world works so that, through understanding, we might bring about something better.
 
Having a map of where we are lets us understand where we might go.
 
Knowledge empowers us to hold power to account and to demand justice where there is none.
 
We obtained and published truths about tens of thousands of hidden casualties of war and other unseen horrors, about programs of assassination, rendition, torture, and mass surveillance.
 
We revealed not just when and where these things happened but frequently the policies, the agreements, and structures behind them.
 
When we published Collateral Murder, the infamous gun camera footage of a US Apache helicopter crew eagerly blowing to pieces Iraqi journalists and their rescuers, the visual reality of modern warfare shocked the world.
 
But we also used interest in this video to direct people to the classified policies for when the US military could deploy lethal force in Iraq and how many civilians could be killed before gaining higher approval.
 
In fact, 40 years of my potential 175-year sentence was for obtaining and releasing these policies.
 
The practical political vision I was left with after being immersed in the world’s dirty wars and secret operations is simple: Let us stop gagging, torturing, and killing each other for a change. Get these fundamentals right and other political, economic, and scientific processes will have space to take care of the rest.
 
WikiLeaks’ work was deeply rooted in the principles that this Assembly stands for.
 
Journalism that elevated freedom of information and the public’s right to know found its natural operational home in Europe.
 
I lived in Paris and we had formal corporate registrations in France and in Iceland. Our journalistic and technical staff were spread throughout Europe. We published to the world from servers in based in France, Germany, and Norway.
 
But 14 years ago the United States military arrested one of our alleged whistleblowers, PFC Manning, a US intelligence analyst based in Iraq.
 
The US government concurrently launched an investigation against me and my colleagues.
 
The US government illicitly sent planes of agents to Iceland, paid bribes to an informer to steal our legal and journalistic work product, and without formal process pressured banks and financial services to block our subscriptions and freeze our accounts.
 
The UK government took part in some of this retribution. It admitted at the European Court of Human Rights that it had unlawfully spied on my UK lawyers during this time.
 
Ultimately this harassment was legally groundless. President Obama’s Justice Department chose not to indict me, recognizing that no crime had been committed.
 
The United States had never before prosecuted a publisher for publishing or obtaining government information. To do so would require a radical and ominous reinterpretation of the US Constitution.
 
In January 2017, Obama also commuted the sentence of Manning, who had been convicted of being one of my sources.
 
However, in February 2017, the landscape changed dramatically. President Trump had been elected. He appointed two wolves in MAGA hats: Mike Pompeo, a Kansas congressman and former arms industry executive, as CIA Director, and William Barr, a former CIA officer, as US Attorney General.
 
By March 2017, WikiLeaks had exposed the CIA’s infiltration of French political parties, its spying on French and German leaders, its spying on the European Central Bank, European economics ministries, and its standing orders to spy on French industry as a whole.
 
We revealed the CIA’s vast production of malware and viruses, its subversion of supply chains, its subversion of antivirus software, cars, smart TVs and iPhones.
 
CIA Director Pompeo launched a campaign of retribution.
 
It is now a matter of public record that under Pompeo’s explicit direction, the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and to assassinate me within the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and authorized going after my European colleagues, subjecting us to theft, hacking attacks, and the planting of false information.
 
My wife and my infant son were also targeted. A CIA asset was permanently assigned to track my wife and instructions were given to obtain DNA from my six month old son’s nappy.
 
This is the testimony of more than 30 current and former US intelligence officials speaking to the US press, which has been additionally corroborated by records seized in a prosecution brought against some of the CIA agents involved.
 
The CIA’s targeting of myself, my family and my associates through aggressive extrajudicial and extraterritorial means provides a rare insight into how powerful intelligence organisations engage in transnational repression. Such repressions are not unique. What is unique is that we know so much about this one due to numerous whistleblowers and to judicial investigations in Spain.
 
This Assembly is no stranger to extraterritorial abuses by the CIA.
 
PACE’s groundbreaking report on CIA renditions in Europe exposed how the CIA operated secret detention centres and conducted unlawful renditions on European soil, violating human rights and international law.
 
In February this year, the alleged source of some of our CIA revelations, former CIA officer Joshua Schulte, was sentenced to forty years in prison under conditions of extreme isolation.
 
His windows are blacked out, and a white noise machine plays 24 hours a day over his door so that he cannot even shout through it.
 
These conditions are more severe than those found in Guantanamo Bay.
 
Transnational repression is also conducted by abusing legal processes.
 
The lack of effective safeguards against this means that Europe is vulnerable to having its mutual legal assistance and extradition treaties hijacked by foreign powers to go after dissenting voices in Europe.
 
In Mike Pompeo’s memoirs, which I read in my prison cell, the former CIA Director bragged about how he pressured the US Attorney General to bring an extradition case against me in response to our publications about the CIA.
 
Indeed, acceding to Pompeo’s efforts, the US Attorney General reopened the investigation against me that Obama had closed and re-arrested Manning, this time as a witness.
 
Manning was held in prison for over a year and fined a thousand dollars a day in a formal attempt to coerce her into providing secret testimony against me.
She ended up attempting to take her own life.
We usually think of attempts to force journalists to testify against their sources. But Manning was now a source being forced to testify against their journalist.
 
By December 2017, CIA Director Pompeo had got his way, and the US government issued a warrant to the UK for my extradition.
 
The UK government kept the warrant secret from the public for two more years, while it, the US government, and the new president of Ecuador moved to shape the political, legal, and diplomatic grounds for my arrest.
 
When powerful nations feel entitled to target individuals beyond their borders, those individuals do not stand a chance unless there are strong safeguards in place and a state willing to enforce them. Without them no individual has a hope of defending themselves against the vast resources that a state aggressor can deploy.
 
If the situation were not already bad enough in my case, the US government asserted a dangerous new global legal position. Only US citizens have free speech rights. Europeans and other nationalities do not have free speech rights. But the US claims its Espionage Act still applies to them regardless of where they are. So Europeans in Europe must obey US secrecy law with no defences at all as far as the US government is concerned. An American in Paris can talk about what the US government is up to – perhaps. But for a Frenchman in Paris, to do so is a crime without any defence and he may be extradited just like me.
 
Now that one foreign government has formally asserted that Europeans have no free speech rights, a dangerous precedent has been set. Other powerful states will inevitably follow suit.
 
The war in Ukraine has already seen the criminalisation of journalists in Russia, but based on the precedent set in my extradition, there is nothing to stop Russia, or indeed any other state, from targeting European journalists, publishers, or even social media users, by claiming that their secrecy laws have been violated.
 
The rights of journalists and publishers within the European space are seriously threatened. Transnational repression cannot become the norm here.
 
As one of the world’s two great norm-setting institutions, PACE must act. The criminalisation of newsgathering activities is a threat to investigative journalism everywhere.
 
I was formally convicted, by a foreign power, for asking for, receiving, and publishing truthful information about that power while I was in Europe.
 
The fundamental issue is simple: Journalists should not be prosecuted for doing their jobs.
 
Journalism is not a crime; it is a pillar of a free and informed society.
 
Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, if Europe is to have a future where the freedom to speak and the freedom to publish the truth are not privileges enjoyed by a few but rights guaranteed to all then it must act so that what has happened in my case never happens to anyone else.

I wish to express my deepest gratitude to this assembly, to the conservatives, social democrats, liberals, leftists, greens, and independents – who have supported me throughout this ordeal and to the countless individuals who have advocated tirelessly for my release.
 
It is heartening to know that in a world often divided by ideology and interests, there remains a shared commitment to the protection of essential human liberties.
 
Freedom of expression and all that flows from it is at a dark crossroads. I fear that unless norm setting institutions like PACE wake up to the gravity of the situation it will be too late.
 
Let us all commit to doing our part to ensure that the light of freedom never dims, that the pursuit of truth will live on, and that the voices of the many are not silenced by the interests of the few.”

Comments by PCR:

Over the many years of Julian Assange’s ordeal at the hands of the Swedish, British, and US governments, I exposed to the extent of the information I had the falseness of every accusation against Assange. These false concocted accusations and attacks ranged from lies that he raped two Swedish women, to the revocation of his asylum and Ecuadoran citizenship by a corrupt Ecuadoran successor president in exchange for a large US loan, to the denial by British “justice” of habeas corpus protection to Assange and, in my opinion and that of many others, of British “justice” attempting to kill Assange by keeping him for years in solitary confinement despite the absence of charges and conviction, to the CIA’s use of two corrupt Trump appointees–Pompeno and Barr–to indict Assange for the crime of being a journalist.

After reading Assange’s address I realized that all of this was just the tip of the iceberg. What the United States government did to Assange is worse than can be found in any dystopian novel.

Read Assange’s speech, and then ask yourself how you can possibly believe you are a free person living in a free democratic country with accountable government where there is justice, mercy, integrity, morality, and the rule of law.

Also notice that it was the Obama Justice Department that dropped all attempts to indict Assange as there are no legal grounds for his indictment, and that it was the Trump Justice Department that reopened the case under CIA pressure. If memory serves, the whores who comprise Western journalism came out against Assange, that is, the dumbshits came out against their own profession, and conservative pundits accused Assange of being a Russian spy. Get the traitor, get the traitor, screamed the presstitutes and conservative pundits.

It was pressure from the Council of Europe and funding of Assange’s lawyers by donations from individuals that caused the CIA to settle for Assange’s plea that he was “guilty of practicing journalism.” We might laugh, but what the CIA has accomplished is a possible precedent for the criminalization of truthful, objective journalism, and its replacement with enforcement of official narratives. Assange himself says he “pled guilty to being a journalist.” The guilty plea implies that journalism is a crime.

How many people will be bothered to understand Assange’s treatment by the “great free democracy, the light of the world”? Hardly any, just as hardly any understand that Washington has provoked Russia to the point of nuclear war, and a majority of Americans, it seems, support Israel’s relentless slaughter of Palestinians redefined by Israel as “Muslim terrorists.”

Suppose people were able to free themselves from insouciance and gain access to truth and understanding, what can they do without political leaders?

Where are their leaders? I can only think of two who have recognizable names: Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen. How have the ruling establishments reacted to these two representatives of the people? Trump has been served by the “freedom and democracy” US government with four criminal indictments for which he is on trial. Le Pen is on trial for representing French ethnicity. The official charge is embezzlement of funds, but her defense of a French ethnic nation makes her a racist under the ruling DEI ideology, and that is the real charge against her.

How good are these two leaders? Le Pen must be pretty good. She has stood the heat for many years, and the party has grown. Possibly it is the largest of the French political parties, but the Establishment has been successful keeping it out of office. It seems Le Pen is on trial on an annual basis.

Trump is a neophyte, He defeated himself in his first term by stupidly surrounding himself with the representatives of the ruling establishment that he thought he was going to overthrow. Instead they overthrew him.

Trump claims he has learned Washington since appointing Gestapo operatives such as Pompano and Barr and refusing to defend General Flynn, his only sensible appointment. But what has he learned? Did he learn that the Establishment is more powerful than the President and that second time around he had best get along with the Establishment?

Leaders are rare. Even if one appears, he cannot count on the people’s support. Cicero, Quaestor, Procounsel, and Counsel of Rome, tried to rally the Roman people from their self-destruction and paid for it with his life.

Trump tried to give power back to the American people and was punished for it with four criminal indictments.

Le Pen tries to represent French ethnicity and is constantly legally harassed.

When the people themselves lose interest in their rights and cannot bring themselves to fight to regain them, they lose their freedom.

In the United States today, and I think throughout the Western world, law has been weaponized against all who openly dissent from the Ruling Establishment’s narratives and agendas. As law is now a weapon in the hands of the state, why would Democrats, whose hand is on this weapon, permit an election to take it away from them?

A sinking ship cannot change its course.

If the Democrats steal a third national election, and the American people again accept it, there will not be another election. Americans will have crossed the Rubicon into tyranny. Older Americans will be slow to realize it, and new generations, having been born into tyranny will not know what has been lost, having never experienced freedom. This is the way liberty dies.