The press hid information that leaked Wikileaks

Sourced at: ElTelegrapho

Hundreds of Wikileaks leaked cables have been hidden by the big newspapers. Assange reveals how the New York Times “gave” the control of its editorial to the Government. And naked other sensitive cases.

Julian Assange es el fundador de la organización WikiLeaks. Desde diciembre de 2010 pasó a ser casi “un objetivo de guerra”. Foto: Copyright 2011. Allen Clark
Julian Assange is the founder of the WikiLeaks. Since December 2010 he became almost “a war aim.” Photo: Copyright 2011. Allen Clark
Orlando Perez, Director

It was a month ago I was contacted Julian Assange, through one of its employees. Immediately agreed to an exchange of e-mails and messages for safety.

Amid the urgency was the tension created as the time drew near that London decides to extradite him to Sweden. Here the result of an exchange of emails for a month.

What are the specific charges hanging over you in the extradition request made by the Swedish prosecutor?

There is no charge against me in any country in the world until today. The Swedish prosecutor has requested my extradition for questioning only and based on an extradition warrant invalid. What exists so far in Sweden opened a preliminary investigation.

Although I offered to Mrs. Swedish prosecutor handling the case that questioned me for a letter rogatory, video or simple telephone conversation, it has refused, without explanation to justify its refusal to conduct the questioning if it develops on Swedish territory.

It is standard procedure in these cases to European researchers who wish to collect information and verify facts, using the telephone or travel to countries. Nothing would prevent it. They admitted to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that nothing is stopping you and refuse to explain to everyone, including the courts, why they would not talk with me, restricting my freedom and for over a year.

Do you think the justice system in Sweden, a country traditionally progressive, responding to political pressure? What specifically?

Sweden was a progressive country, but no more so since the assassination of Olof Palme. Sweden enjoys a progressive reputation no longer deserved. In fact, is the country with the highest per capita manufacturing weapons in the world, even over Israel. Most of his progressive policies that marked the welfare state model of the 60 no longer exist.

In the decade of 2000, Sweden broke with two centuries of neutrality when delegated to their own soldiers to U.S. control in Afghanistan. I have no faith in me from Sweden, as it has left behind his ideals to become a fierce ally of the United States, behind even their own people.

We know from the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables published by the United States has established numerous informal arrangements to avoid scrutiny of the Swedish parliament. For example, we get to light that the Swedish government allows U.S. access to private data and communications from the Swedish population, although this decision was even raised in Parliament.

The cables reveal that even within the Swedish government does not know the extent of Swedish collaboration with the U.S., and to open the matter to Parliament would jeopardize informal arrangements to share existing information, and result in criticism of the Swedish government, by their citizens.

Sweden secretly collaborated with the CIA to authorize extraordinary rendition flights from your country. In 2001 assisted in extrajudicial kidnapping of two people who had political asylum in Sweden. Those two people were transported to Egypt where they were tortured.

The Committee against Torture of the UN, among others, has described as illegal the conduct of Sweden. As to the question of extradition, Sweden has agreed to extradite all those who have been requested by U.S. since 2000. Sweden was one of the few countries that voted against the inclusion of Palestine to UNESCO, not abstain.

Wikileaks revealed the practices that violate human rights in the U.S. featuring wars and has fully exposed the secrets of American diplomacy around the world. From this country there are voices that have suggested that you are treated as a war criminal. Why this country then he has also requested his extradition?

Admittedly, I’ve been accused of terrorist Mossad spy, spy for the CIA, anything but a journalist, because they know that if I am appointed for what I am protected by the First Amendment. But in fact we know that the U.S. has the express intention of extraditing their country. WikiLeaks has published one of the leaders of the company Stratfor, a private intelligence firm based in Austin, Texas, had information of a sealed indictment in January 2011.

We also know through interviews with State Department advisers, interviews with ambassadors from the United States of America, Australia and the United Kingdom, the United States is negotiating and lobbying for these countries to access my extradition once it has cleared the Swedish case. We also know that the United States and Sweden have held informal meetings about my extradition as early as December 8, 2010, they reported the British newspaper The Independent.

What was the position of his native Australia, against WikiLeaks and Julian Asange in particular? Do you feel that there would be protected if it decided to settle there?

The political situation in Australia is very fragile and troubling time. Just a few weeks ago there arose a great power struggle between the present Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. The dispute ended with the resignation of the latter, who held the post of chancellor. But the seriousness of this situation was that the scandal hid an amendment to the law of extradition. This law provides extradition for political offenses.

The same U.S. Ambassador in Australia said in an interview that Australia should review its extradition laws regarding my extradition to U.S.

It seems that the government has followed the dictates of the superpower, and they intend to sacrifice myself and WikiLeaks to the altar of the U.S. alliance. I believe that Australia no longer protect me, unless the current government and Prime Minister Gillard. Gillard has accused me of acting illegally, disrespecting the principle of presumption of innocence.

Then he had to admit that I had violated no law in Australia reluctantly. Still, the Australian government has amended a law, ‘the amendment WikiLeaks’, which extends the powers of the Australian intelligence services so they can monitor an Australian NGOs such as WikiLeaks, but not be accused of anything.

However, I must say also that I have received many expressions of support from the population of Australia. A few months ago we won the Walkley award, equivalent to American Pulitzer Prize famous in Australia for the ‘outstanding contribution to journalism. ” In 2011 I was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize for my work with WikiLeaks. I share this honor with people who I admire, like Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.

What happened with this award, however, caused me sadness and wonder. Despite the importance of the prize, an international award that gives my country of great prestige, the Australian Embassy in the United Kingdom refused to host the awards ceremony. The embassy suggested that the Foundation of the Sydney Peace rent a bar somewhere for the awards gala.

That disconnect is what alarms me in my country: on the one hand the support of the population, journalists and human rights lawyers, and even former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and the other the government’s hostile attitude and most politicians, who do not take a strong position to protect its citizens from the wrath of the military-industrial America. It is for this gap, the disconnection, I announced my intention nomination of candidate to the Senate of my country in 2013.

You have created the idea of WikiLeaks seeks primarily to confront the Pentagon. Is that really the reason for WikiLeaks?

This is one of the attacks that are unfounded. The material that WikiLeaks has published since 2006 concerns every country in the world. They are diplomatic cables and there is no country that has not been affected by this revelation. Since 2006 we have published papers in the UK, Germany, China, Cuba, Peru, Venezuela, Colombia, Iran, Somalia, Kenya and many other countries. The charge that WikiLeaks is an organization antagonistic to the Pentagon is a tactic.

Neither Amnesty International nor WikiLeaks, to mention another organization that pursues the same objectives of fairness and transparency, consider that the Pentagon is exempt from accountability to the population. Is accountable to its own population and those populations is leading a war.

Through the great revelations of the Iraq documents, we know that the U.S. military was counting the deaths of civilians, but said publicly that he did not know the numbers: more than 100,000.

If revealing war crimes and deaths of innocent civilians on this scale is in the eyes of the Pentagon an affront, it means that the democratic mechanisms in the country have stopped working.

WikiLeaks is a benchmark for many investigative journalism and more of an international award it has received for its activity. For others however, are just what WikiLeaks leaks, but not journalism. Where lies the journalistic component WikiLeaks?

I will use the same question as an example. Although you mention that there are some actors who say WikiLeaks journalism actually does not mention who they are. This is a distraction used by many journalists. That’s bad journalism, not to name those who say something, either because the claim is less important to mention or because often no one said what you said.

In the case of WikiLeaks, who verbally attacked the organization are either government officials or well and, surprisingly, media rivals. Why feel like rivals such media and WikiLeaks see as competition? Because we do journalism better than theirs.

Journalists take a camera to film a war are real journalists, journalism is not scribbles opinion, is to find, is located, is removed, it is verified, is selected and presented in an appropriate format, with full analysis, the facts about the world, facts that can change the world. WikiLeaks does all that.

The corporate media today, with new technologies and are able to create views based on their interests, as suggested by Chomsky. Are they a real power even able to submit to governments?

The question is not whether the media can control governments or vice versa, there may be no difference between them.The question is how can people control them.

When the media do their job, they tell people how corporations and governments behave, without hiding uncomfortable truths. When a medium is corrupt, abuses his position of influence and hidden information to people, or use people as a personal army in a fight for their own interest not disclosed to the public.

Most, almost all major media organizations are suffering from such distortion, institutional corruption because once half grown and has enough power, attracts powerful groups are able to control people, then make deals under the table to protect certain interests and to target certain groups.

That is why it is extremely important to prevent the media from growing too, and that is why the Internet has been a tremendous boon to the truth. Not because everything that is published on the Internet is true, but for increasing the barrier to entry for anyone to publish, so that thousands of people to publish.

Are you aware that more sophisticated removed the power of governments: the secret? How does that change the spirit of power regarding the possibility of making it visible from the information?

Organizations hide the information for a reason. It is expensive to devote resources to hide the information and sometimes the information is hidden motif that would support all in theory, but most of the time the information is hidden by an organization because they perceive that the public will act against him if he knows what’s done or what is up.

If it is very difficult for an organization, including a State, withhold information from the public, is it too risky to proceed with a plan dirty, perpetrating an injustice. If it brings out the plans for doing something dirty or wrong, many of these plans can be avoided. Because a wrong, once exposed is the opposite and therefore is unlikely to be carried out or much more difficult to perform.

If governments can not make plans unjust, then governments can only be a tool for social justice. Similarly corporations, it is easier to make a fair plan an unjust, most plans will be fair.

Does the material given to the media, the information provided, also did not reveal the precariousness of the means versus what hidden power, or some media complicity with certain powers?

Yes, I found a lot of that you mention. For example, in our publication of diplomatic cables, known as Cablegate, The New York Times warned the White House diplomatic cables will post about two weeks before they were revealed by the mainstream media.

What is even worse was that this newspaper gave full editorial control by the government, the State Department informing them each day before publishing what specific cable going out.

As a result of such action is suppressed and never published a story about the U.S. government and a squad of hit men in the Army, although the story had been written by one of its reporters.

Like this, there are many other cases, not only was The New York Times, El Pais wrote parts of the cables to protect sources, but for political reasons. Der Spiegel in Germany criticized at least one cable on Merkel and the war in Afghanistan for political reasons; The Guardian condemned hundreds of cables, for example, that the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko, hid his fortune in London and the Italian corporation ENI was corrupt.

Le Monde decided to not only write but also delete entire paragraphs of diplomatic cables on sub-Saharan Africa. It is also surprising that a newspaper like The New York Times published only 190 diplomatic cables, less than 0.08 of the material revealed.

Is it possible to regulate the media without affecting freedom of expression? In Ecuador, for example, has not yet been possible to agree a media regulatory law, it is argued that regulation is tantamount to censorship. Is this necessarily true?

Markets must be regulated to remain free, otherwise large companies become monopolies or duopolies. This happens also with the media. When media companies have grown too much power in the marketplace of ideas and also have the ability to abuse that power and distort information, information on which people base their decisions, in which people trust.

It is true that if you do not have the means to control these powerful actors, tomorrow we could see a beverage corporation paying the largest local newspaper, for example Trade or The Universe, it published a note saying that your competitor’s product contains cyanide.

However, even with regulation, if a medium is big and powerful is the ability to place themselves above the law, through their connections and contacts, or rather abuse of legislation to affect competition.

I think the right approach to the subject is having little or no regulation of the means for individuals and small publishers, and also break the media monopolies and that they can not abuse their dominant market position.

If it is not politically feasible to break these monopolies, then your behavior must be regulated in a careful manner.

What are the main elements of the media law that WikiLeaks promoted in Iceland and have been received for approval by the Icelandic parliament?

The idea behind the Modern Media Initiative submitted to the Icelandic Parliament is to promote Internet industry and diversity of media and therefore of democracy at an international level, providing protections and safeguards for publications such as WikiLeaks.

This is done in different ways, making it easier to register a foreign media organization, with the legal requirement that journalists protect their sources, providing legislation to protect and prevent the destruction of material that has already been published and files historical, and giving an annual prize for freedom of expression.

It is designed to protect the actual investigative journalism, as opposed to capitalist journalism. It is designed to protect journalism as WikiLeaks of abuse of the legal system that companies use to stop the investigative journalists.

The biggest attack on Wikileaks so far has not directly perpetrated by the government, but by banks and corporations more than one hundred legal attacks for now. These are mostly financial institutions. Many journalists have left the United States to prevent attacks from corporations to their jobs, for example in other countries also involves journalists to go into exile or to post what they have published.

As a direct impact on WikiLeaks in Ecuador expelled the U.S. Ambassador. What do you think such a reaction?

Before that Ecuador’s decision to expel the diplomats were expelled U.S. Ambassador in Mexico and Libya. From the evidence in diplomatic cables seems that these officials said one thing local contacts or with the people who were having lunch and quite another when they sent their reports to Washington. Therefore, it is no surprise that the government of Ecuador lost confidence in the Ambassador, in such circumstances.

Personally, I disagree with the decision to expel her because I think it would have been a better strategy to keep “the devil you know”.

How would you rate the overall processes of change occurring in much of Latin America in the last decade? Do you know something is happening in Ecuador, in particular?

I have observed the growing strength in terms of cohesion and South – South cooperation, democratization, and Latin American leadership is now recognized on the international stage. About Ecuador is a country that is implementing measures to reduce poverty and inequality and that’s positive.

You prepare a talk show for TV. What is the profile of it? Did we see in Latin America?

Yes, I’m filming a program that explores the world where it’s going in the future utopias, technical developments … To do this I interviewed the brightest or most impact people around the world. Among the people I interviewed are from thinkers like Noam Chomsky to the president of Tunisia, to name a few.

Assange became a modern icon of the rebellious activism. How do you see this activism in future generations, the young American?

We live in the world our senses perceive. Our limits are the limits of our perceptions. This generation knows more than any other generation ever. Their actions will eclipse all previous generations. To change the world in which we live, observe, think and act. To observe, we open our eyes.

To think, we open our minds. To act, we open our hearts to courage, bravery. Our eyes have never been so open. Our minds have never been as rapid as today. And our courage, our courage, is spreading like a virus.

No comments yet... Be the first to leave a reply!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: