Democracy Now! Exclusive: Julian Assange on Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, Cypherpunks & the Surveillance State

"When we look at what happens when civilization moves onto the Internet, how is it controlled at the moment? A lot of the problems we face on the Internet & the idea of the Internet is guys with guns can simply turn up to any Internet server & tell the people there to behave in a certain way just like they do with oil wells or they do with customs.

So as an international news civilization, a forum were people intellectually express themselves, where we deposit our history, political ideals & ambition, the Internet is suffering from mass interception, but on the other hand it is still subservient to the physical force in the various states that its infrastructure is located in.

Cryptography offers a way, an abstract a way from the physical world, to create as a sort of mathematical barrier between the physical world & the intellectual world, & in that way slowly declare independence from nation states. Our intellectual world cannot simply be deleted or taxed in the manner which we have suffered from for so long in nation states.”

Compare Amy Goodman & Juan Gonzalez’s great interview to CNN’s really annoying, unprofessional interview with Assange yesterday. 

Cryptography is the ultimate form of nonviolent direct action.

While nuclear weapons states can exert unlimited violence over even millions of individuals, strong cryptography means that a state, even by exercising unlimited violence, cannot violate the intent of individuals to keep secrets from them.

Strong cryptography can resist an unlimited application of violence. No amount of coercive force will ever solve a math problem.

Julian Assange, A Call to Cryptic Arms “Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet”

I just started reading this book, which includes discussions with Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Müller-Maguhn & Jérémie Zimmerman. You can buy a copy here!

For more on cypherpunks, WikiLeaks & internet freedom, watch this episode of The Julian Assange Show Part 1 & Part 2

European Parliament votes to protect Wikileaks against financial blockadeNovember 21, 2012
European Parliament votes to protect WikiLeaks. In a landmark decision today the European Parliament initiated the drafting of legislation that would stop the arbitrary banking blockades against WikiLeaks and other organizations facing economic censorship. This is an important signal from the European lawmakers. It is a recognition of the seriousness of the precedents set in December 2010, still in force, when Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Western Union and Bank of America launched a unilateral, extrajudicial banking blockade against donations to WikiLeaks. The blockade has cost the organization more than US$50 million. The US Treasury formally found last year that there is no lawful reason why WikiLeaks should be placed on the US embargo list, but the highly political blockade continues. WikiLeaks welcomes the support of MEPs on this important issue and agrees with the European Parliament, which “considers it likely that there will be a growing number of European companies whose activities are effectively dependent on being able to accept payments by card; [and] considers it to be in the public interest to define objective rules describing the circumstances and procedures under which card payment schemes may unilaterally refuse acceptance.”
This underlines the claim by WikiLeaks that if the financial blockade against WikiLeaks is not stopped, US financial giants will be free to unilaterally decide which European companies and organizations live or die. As WikiLeaks has previously pointed out, this is an attack on fundamental rights that cannot be left unchallenged. The organization has already launched lawsuits in two European jurisdictions and is awaiting the final outcome in its complaint to the European Commission against the major credit card companies for violations of competition laws. The Commission’s decision is expected before the end of the year. WikiLeaks has been victorious in all court hearings about this issue to date.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said: “I welcome this response from EU lawmakers. European independence is important. But there is no sovereignty without economic sovereignty. Politicized US financial monopolies must not be able to censor European organizations with impunity.”
Source

European Parliament votes to protect Wikileaks against financial blockade
November 21, 2012

European Parliament votes to protect WikiLeaks. In a landmark decision today the European Parliament initiated the drafting of legislation that would stop the arbitrary banking blockades against WikiLeaks and other organizations facing economic censorship. This is an important signal from the European lawmakers. It is a recognition of the seriousness of the precedents set in December 2010, still in force, when Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Western Union and Bank of America launched a unilateral, extrajudicial banking blockade against donations to WikiLeaks. The blockade has cost the organization more than US$50 million. The US Treasury formally found last year that there is no lawful reason why WikiLeaks should be placed on the US embargo list, but the highly political blockade continues. WikiLeaks welcomes the support of MEPs on this important issue and agrees with the European Parliament, which “considers it likely that there will be a growing number of European companies whose activities are effectively dependent on being able to accept payments by card; [and] considers it to be in the public interest to define objective rules describing the circumstances and procedures under which card payment schemes may unilaterally refuse acceptance.”

This underlines the claim by WikiLeaks that if the financial blockade against WikiLeaks is not stopped, US financial giants will be free to unilaterally decide which European companies and organizations live or die. As WikiLeaks has previously pointed out, this is an attack on fundamental rights that cannot be left unchallenged. The organization has already launched lawsuits in two European jurisdictions and is awaiting the final outcome in its complaint to the European Commission against the major credit card companies for violations of competition laws. The Commission’s decision is expected before the end of the year. WikiLeaks has been victorious in all court hearings about this issue to date.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said: “I welcome this response from EU lawmakers. European independence is important. But there is no sovereignty without economic sovereignty. Politicized US financial monopolies must not be able to censor European organizations with impunity.”

Source

What is TYLER? Anonymous reveals details of its own ‘WikiLeaks’ project
October 23, 2012
The hacktivist collective Anonymous will reportedly launch TYLER – a ‘secure, no cost and decentralized’ online leaks release platform to circumvent problems inherent in WikiLeaks - on the day many (and Mayans) believe to be the end of the world.
One of the group’s members, who specified that he is representing the collective, spoke about the TYLER project and the rift with WikiLeaks in an email interview with the Voice of Russia.
According to unnamed hacker, the conflict between Anonymous and Julian Assange’s whistleblowing site revolves around the coercive fund raising techniques and a lack of transparency regarding WikiLeaks finances.
Previously, Anonymous has been a longtime advocate of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, vocally supporting the website’s mission of sharing secret data, news leaks, and classified information with the public.
However, information recently posted by Anonymous on AnonPaste.me says WikiLeaks “has chosen to dishonor and insult Anonymous and all information activists” by requiring payment to view documents it previously made available for free.
But Anonymous is not a structured group with a defined leader – and the identity of the people behind the posts slamming WikiLeaks for asking for donations and various Twitter usernames remains unclear. The uncertainty has left many wondering whether these opinions represent the group as a whole, or just a few scattered members.
The hacktivists, claims the person who spoke to the Voice of Russia, see it as an ethical violation – and have responded by saying they may reveal information about WikiLeaks itself.
“What we would like to see released – either legitimately or leaked to Anonymous by a WikiLeaks insider – is the WikiLeaks financial records. We do not possess these, but should they be delivered to us we would certainly disclose them. An organization that preaches transparency to the world should provide it for themselves”, the Anonymous member said. 
The annoyance that Anonymous members seem to be experiencing is likely due to the fact that they take credit for some of WikiLeaks’ major data publications.
Anonymous and other hacktivists claim they provided WikiLeaks with the more than 2 million emails released as part of the Syria files. They also apparently worked together to leak the Stratfor files – millions of emails from a Texas-based global intelligence company.  
When asked about the future of WikiLeaks, the anonymous hacker said “Julian has threatened on at least one previous occasion to pull the plug on the project because the fundraising was not meeting his expectations. It was at that time that Anonymous began planning to field our own alternative disclosure platforms. Julian desperately needs WikiLeaks, and he is the only one that can pull the plug on the project. I rather think that so long as he is in dire straits, he will not do so – despite any threats from him to the contrary.”
WikiLeaks admits the paywall’s presence is less than ideal, but says it is financially necessary.
“WikiLeaks faces unprecedented costs due to involvement in over 12 concurrent legal matters around the world, including our litigation of the US military in the Bradley Manning case. Our FBI file as of the start of the year had grown to 42,135 pages,” a written response from the website said.
TYLER will be P2P encrypted software, in which every function of a disclosure platform will be handled and shared by everyone who downloads and deploys the software. In theory, this makes it sort of like BitCoin or other P2P platforms in that there is virtually no way to attack it or shut it down. It would also obviously be thoroughly decentralized.”
Source
Although I think some leniency should be given to Wikileaks’ paywall due to the overwhelming amount of financial pressure that is on them, an Anonymous collective does seem like a great way to handle leaks instead. And honestly, having ANOTHER leak-oriented project with similar goals will certainly be beneficial for keeping free-information flowing. I’m interested to see what TYLER ends up doing.  

What is TYLER? Anonymous reveals details of its own ‘WikiLeaks’ project

October 23, 2012

The hacktivist collective Anonymous will reportedly launch TYLER – a ‘secure, no cost and decentralized’ online leaks release platform to circumvent problems inherent in WikiLeaks - on the day many (and Mayans) believe to be the end of the world.

One of the group’s members, who specified that he is representing the collective, spoke about the TYLER project and the rift with WikiLeaks in an email interview with the Voice of Russia.

According to unnamed hacker, the conflict between Anonymous and Julian Assange’s whistleblowing site revolves around the coercive fund raising techniques and a lack of transparency regarding WikiLeaks finances.

Previously, Anonymous has been a longtime advocate of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, vocally supporting the website’s mission of sharing secret data, news leaks, and classified information with the public.

However, information recently posted by Anonymous on AnonPaste.me says WikiLeaks “has chosen to dishonor and insult Anonymous and all information activists” by requiring payment to view documents it previously made available for free.

But Anonymous is not a structured group with a defined leader – and the identity of the people behind the posts slamming WikiLeaks for asking for donations and various Twitter usernames remains unclear. The uncertainty has left many wondering whether these opinions represent the group as a whole, or just a few scattered members.

The hacktivists, claims the person who spoke to the Voice of Russia, see it as an ethical violation – and have responded by saying they may reveal information about WikiLeaks itself.

“What we would like to see released – either legitimately or leaked to Anonymous by a WikiLeaks insider – is the WikiLeaks financial records. We do not possess these, but should they be delivered to us we would certainly disclose them. An organization that preaches transparency to the world should provide it for themselves”, the Anonymous member said. 

The annoyance that Anonymous members seem to be experiencing is likely due to the fact that they take credit for some of WikiLeaks’ major data publications.

Anonymous and other hacktivists claim they provided WikiLeaks with the more than 2 million emails released as part of the Syria files. They also apparently worked together to leak the Stratfor files – millions of emails from a Texas-based global intelligence company.  

When asked about the future of WikiLeaks, the anonymous hacker said “Julian has threatened on at least one previous occasion to pull the plug on the project because the fundraising was not meeting his expectations. It was at that time that Anonymous began planning to field our own alternative disclosure platforms. Julian desperately needs WikiLeaks, and he is the only one that can pull the plug on the project. I rather think that so long as he is in dire straits, he will not do so – despite any threats from him to the contrary.”

WikiLeaks admits the paywall’s presence is less than ideal, but says it is financially necessary.

“WikiLeaks faces unprecedented costs due to involvement in over 12 concurrent legal matters around the world, including our litigation of the US military in the Bradley Manning case. Our FBI file as of the start of the year had grown to 42,135 pages,” a written response from the website said.

TYLER will be P2P encrypted software, in which every function of a disclosure platform will be handled and shared by everyone who downloads and deploys the software. In theory, this makes it sort of like BitCoin or other P2P platforms in that there is virtually no way to attack it or shut it down. It would also obviously be thoroughly decentralized.”

Source

Although I think some leniency should be given to Wikileaks’ paywall due to the overwhelming amount of financial pressure that is on them, an Anonymous collective does seem like a great way to handle leaks instead. And honestly, having ANOTHER leak-oriented project with similar goals will certainly be beneficial for keeping free-information flowing. I’m interested to see what TYLER ends up doing.  

As of August 29, 2012:
WikiLeaks has been financially blockaded without process for 634 days.Julian Assange has been detained without charge for 631 days.  - 71 days at the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Bradley Manning has been in jail without trial for 828 days.  A secret Grand Jury on WikiLeaks has been active for 714 days.

As of August 29, 2012:

WikiLeaks has been financially blockaded without process for 634 days.
Julian Assange has been detained without charge for 631 days. 
 - 71 days at the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Bradley Manning has been in jail without trial for 828 days.  
A secret Grand Jury on WikiLeaks has been active for 714 days.
Protesters gather outside American embassy to demand Manning’s freedomAugust 25, 2012
A group of 40 campaigners gathered outside the American embassy in London on Saturday to protest against the incarceration of a US Army private accused of leaking information to whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.
Breanna, also known as Bradley, Manning, 24, is charged with passing classified data and delivering national defence information to an unauthorised source
It is claimed she sent hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and war logs to Julian Assange’s Wikileaks website while working as an intelligence analyst in Iraq.
Manning could be sentenced to life imprisonment if convicted of the most serious offence, aiding the enemy.
On Saturday, protesters gathered in front of the heavily guarded Grosvenor Square building for more than an hour bearing “Free Bradley Manning” placards.
Ben Griffin, 34, a former SAS soldier and founding member of Veterans For Peace UK, addressed the crowd after observing a 30-minute silent vigil.
He said: “The most significant piece of resistance to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan came when a young soldier released information that the US and UK governments would rather we did not know about.
"Among the files released through Wikileaks were the Afghan War Diaries which showed the day-to-day ritual killing and torture that has been going on in Afghanistan for years.
"Then the Iraq War Logs were released. As a result of those logs we found out about thousands of people killed in Iraq by US and UK troops that we did not know about.
"Through the diplomatic cable release we now know about the sneaky little deals with other governments so we do not know the reality of the wars.
"As a result of these leaks a young soldier has spent years in prison and still has not come to trial.
"As a result of action around the world the US military was forced to move him from Quantico (Virginia), to Fort Leavenworth (Kansas).
"That guy is still being held and for the last six months we’ve been coming here when Bradley Manning has been taken to a pre-trial hearing, when the military decide what is going to be allowed to come out in his case and what is not, and standing in solidarity."
Among the dozens of protesters were several wearing the V For Vendetta mask that has become associated with the hacking group Anonymous.
Others carried banners saying “Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime” and “Free Assange, Free Manning, End the war”.
One demonstrator who gave her name only as Val, from Bedford, said: “Bradley Manning, I think, is a hero.
"If anybody should have got the Nobel Peace Prize it is him."
Fellow campaigner 38-year-old Glyn Jukes, from Wales, said: “He stands for truth and justice at a time when very few others are.”
Source
Exposing war crimes is not a crime!

Protesters gather outside American embassy to demand Manning’s freedom
August 25, 2012

A group of 40 campaigners gathered outside the American embassy in London on Saturday to protest against the incarceration of a US Army private accused of leaking information to whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.

Breanna, also known as Bradley, Manning, 24, is charged with passing classified data and delivering national defence information to an unauthorised source

It is claimed she sent hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and war logs to Julian Assange’s Wikileaks website while working as an intelligence analyst in Iraq.

Manning could be sentenced to life imprisonment if convicted of the most serious offence, aiding the enemy.

On Saturday, protesters gathered in front of the heavily guarded Grosvenor Square building for more than an hour bearing “Free Bradley Manning” placards.

Ben Griffin, 34, a former SAS soldier and founding member of Veterans For Peace UK, addressed the crowd after observing a 30-minute silent vigil.

He said: “The most significant piece of resistance to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan came when a young soldier released information that the US and UK governments would rather we did not know about.

"Among the files released through Wikileaks were the Afghan War Diaries which showed the day-to-day ritual killing and torture that has been going on in Afghanistan for years.

"Then the Iraq War Logs were released. As a result of those logs we found out about thousands of people killed in Iraq by US and UK troops that we did not know about.

"Through the diplomatic cable release we now know about the sneaky little deals with other governments so we do not know the reality of the wars.

"As a result of these leaks a young soldier has spent years in prison and still has not come to trial.

"As a result of action around the world the US military was forced to move him from Quantico (Virginia), to Fort Leavenworth (Kansas).

"That guy is still being held and for the last six months we’ve been coming here when Bradley Manning has been taken to a pre-trial hearing, when the military decide what is going to be allowed to come out in his case and what is not, and standing in solidarity."

Among the dozens of protesters were several wearing the V For Vendetta mask that has become associated with the hacking group Anonymous.

Others carried banners saying “Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime” and “Free Assange, Free Manning, End the war”.

One demonstrator who gave her name only as Val, from Bedford, said: “Bradley Manning, I think, is a hero.

"If anybody should have got the Nobel Peace Prize it is him."

Fellow campaigner 38-year-old Glyn Jukes, from Wales, said: “He stands for truth and justice at a time when very few others are.”

Source

Exposing war crimes is not a crime!

Women Against Rape organization: We do not want Assange extraditedAugust 24, 2012
When Julian Assange was first arrested, we were struck by the unusual zeal with which he was being pursued for rape allegations.
It seems even clearer now, that the allegations against him are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction.
Justice for an accused rapist does not deny justice for his accusers. But in this case justice is being denied both to accusers and accused.
The judicial process has been corrupted. On the one hand, the names of the women have been circulated on the internet; they have been trashed, accused of setting a “honey trap”, and seen their allegations dismissed as “not real rape”. On the other hand, Assange is dealt with by much of the media as if he were guilty, though he has not even been charged. It is not for us to decide whether or not the allegations are true and whether what happened amounts to rape or sexual violence – we don’t have all the facts and what has been said so far has not been tested. But we do know that rape victims’ right to anonymity and defendants’ right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty are both crucial to a just judicial process.
Swedish and British courts are responsible for how the women’s allegations have been handled. As with every rape case, the women are not in charge of the case, the state is.
Whether or not Assange is guilty of sexual violence, we do not believe that is why he is being pursued. Once again women’s fury and frustration at the prevalence of rape and other violence, is being used by politicians to advance their own purposes. The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will, usually to increase their powers, this time to facilitate Assange’s extradition or even rendition to the US. That the US has not presented a demand for his extradition at this stage is no guarantee that they won’t do so once he is in Sweden, and that he will not be tortured as Bradley Manning and many others, women and men, have. Women Against Rape cannot ignore this threat.
In over 30 years working with thousands of rape victims who are seeking asylum from rape and other forms of torture, we have met nothing but obstruction from British governments. Time after time, they have accused women of lying and deported them with no concern for their safety. We are currently working with three women who were raped again after having been deported – one of them is now destitute, struggling to survive with the child she conceived from the rape; the other managed to return to Britain and won the right to stay, and one of them won compensation.
Assange has made it clear for months that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step to their investigation? What are they afraid of?
In 1998 Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London following an extradition request from Spain. His responsibility for the murder and disappearance of at least 3,000 people, and the torture of 30,000 people, including the rape and sexual abuse of more than 3,000 women often with the use of dogs, was never in doubt. Despite a lengthy legal action and a daily picket outside parliament called by Chilean refugees, including women who had been tortured under Pinochet, the British government reneged on its obligation to Spain’s criminal justice system and Pinochet was allowed to return to Chile. Assange has not even been charged; yet the determination to have him extradited is much greater than ever it was with Pinochet. (Baltasar Garzón, whose request for extradition of Pinochet was denied, is representing Assange.) And there is a history of Sweden (and Britain) rendering asylum seekers at risk of torture at the behest of the US.
Like women in Sweden and everywhere, we want rapists caught, charged and convicted. We have campaigned for that for more than 35 years, with limited success. We are even having to campaign to prevent rape victims being accused of making false allegations and imprisoned for it. Two women who reported visibly violent attacks by strangers were given two and three year prison sentences.
But does anyone really believe that extraditing Julian Assange will strengthen women against rape? And do those supporting his extradition to Sweden care if he is then extradited to the US and tortured for telling the public what we need to know about those who govern us?
Source
This is a really great piece. The political pursuit of Assange by the US musn’t be overlooked as it is nearly always downplayed by the mainstream media.
Each time we post about Assange’s case, we always get reblogs commenting that he’s a rapist, we’re rape sympathizers for supporting Wikileaks, etc. etc. 
So once again: Assange has not been charged with any crime in any country. We are not rape sympathizers (what a disgusting claim…). We support Assange as a journalist & the exposure of government corruption & lies in all forms. 

Women Against Rape organization: We do not want Assange extradited
August 24, 2012

When Julian Assange was first arrested, we were struck by the unusual zeal with which he was being pursued for rape allegations.

It seems even clearer now, that the allegations against him are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction.

Justice for an accused rapist does not deny justice for his accusers. But in this case justice is being denied both to accusers and accused.

The judicial process has been corrupted. On the one hand, the names of the women have been circulated on the internet; they have been trashed, accused of setting a “honey trap”, and seen their allegations dismissed as “not real rape”. On the other hand, Assange is dealt with by much of the media as if he were guilty, though he has not even been charged. It is not for us to decide whether or not the allegations are true and whether what happened amounts to rape or sexual violence – we don’t have all the facts and what has been said so far has not been tested. But we do know that rape victims’ right to anonymity and defendants’ right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty are both crucial to a just judicial process.

Swedish and British courts are responsible for how the women’s allegations have been handled. As with every rape case, the women are not in charge of the case, the state is.

Whether or not Assange is guilty of sexual violence, we do not believe that is why he is being pursued. Once again women’s fury and frustration at the prevalence of rape and other violence, is being used by politicians to advance their own purposes. The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will, usually to increase their powers, this time to facilitate Assange’s extradition or even rendition to the US. That the US has not presented a demand for his extradition at this stage is no guarantee that they won’t do so once he is in Sweden, and that he will not be tortured as Bradley Manning and many others, women and men, have. Women Against Rape cannot ignore this threat.

In over 30 years working with thousands of rape victims who are seeking asylum from rape and other forms of torture, we have met nothing but obstruction from British governments. Time after time, they have accused women of lying and deported them with no concern for their safety. We are currently working with three women who were raped again after having been deported – one of them is now destitute, struggling to survive with the child she conceived from the rape; the other managed to return to Britain and won the right to stay, and one of them won compensation.

Assange has made it clear for months that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step to their investigation? What are they afraid of?

In 1998 Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London following an extradition request from Spain. His responsibility for the murder and disappearance of at least 3,000 people, and the torture of 30,000 people, including the rape and sexual abuse of more than 3,000 women often with the use of dogs, was never in doubt. Despite a lengthy legal action and a daily picket outside parliament called by Chilean refugees, including women who had been tortured under Pinochet, the British government reneged on its obligation to Spain’s criminal justice system and Pinochet was allowed to return to Chile. Assange has not even been charged; yet the determination to have him extradited is much greater than ever it was with Pinochet. (Baltasar Garzón, whose request for extradition of Pinochet was denied, is representing Assange.) And there is a history of Sweden (and Britain) rendering asylum seekers at risk of torture at the behest of the US.

Like women in Sweden and everywhere, we want rapists caught, charged and convicted. We have campaigned for that for more than 35 years, with limited success. We are even having to campaign to prevent rape victims being accused of making false allegations and imprisoned for it. Two women who reported visibly violent attacks by strangers were given two and three year prison sentences.

But does anyone really believe that extraditing Julian Assange will strengthen women against rape? And do those supporting his extradition to Sweden care if he is then extradited to the US and tortured for telling the public what we need to know about those who govern us?

Source

This is a really great piece. The political pursuit of Assange by the US musn’t be overlooked as it is nearly always downplayed by the mainstream media.

Each time we post about Assange’s case, we always get reblogs commenting that he’s a rapist, we’re rape sympathizers for supporting Wikileaks, etc. etc. 

So once again: Assange has not been charged with any crime in any country. We are not rape sympathizers (what a disgusting claim…). We support Assange as a journalist & the exposure of government corruption & lies in all forms. 

MUST WATCH: Julian Assange speaks from the Ecuadorian embassy in London in his first appearance in two months. 

"The US must renounce its witch hunt on Wikileaks… Bradley Manning must be released. If Bradley Manning did as he is accused, he is a hero & an example to all of us & one of the world’s more foremost political prisoners. Bradley Manning must be released."

Julian Assange granted political asylum in EcuadorAugust 14, 2012
Ecuador's president Rafael Correa has agreed to give Julian Assange asylum, officials within Ecuador’s government have said.
The WikiLeaks founder has been holed up at Ecuador’s London embassy since June 19, when he officially requested political asylum.
"Ecuador will grant asylum to Julian Assange," said an official in the Ecuadorean capital Quito, who is familiar with the government discussions.
On Monday, Correa told state-run ECTV that he would decide this week whether to grant asylum to Assange. Correa said a large amount of material about international law had to be examined to make a responsible informed decision.
Ecuador’s foreign minister Ricardo Patiño indicated that the president would reveal his answer once the Olympic Games were over. But it remains unclear if giving Assange asylum will allow him to leave Britain and fly to Ecuador, or amounts to little more than a symbolic gesture. At the moment he faces the prospect of arrest as soon as he leaves the embassy for breaching his bail conditions.
"For Mr Assange to leave England, he should have a safe pass from the British [government]. Will that be possible? That’s an issue we have to take into account," Patino told Reuters on Tuesday.
Government sources in Quito confirmed that despite the outstanding legal issues Correa would grant Assange asylum – a move which would annoy Britain, the US and Sweden. They added that the offer was made to Assange several months ago, well before he sought refuge in the embassy, and following confidential negotiations with senior London embassy staff.
The official with knowledge of the discussions said the embassy had discussed Assange’s asylum request. The British government, however, “discouraged the idea,” the offical said. The Swedish government was also “not very collaborative”, the official said.
The official added: “We see Assange’s request as a humanitarian issue. The contact between the Ecuadorean government and WikiLeaks goes back to May 2011, when we became the first country to see the leaked US embassy cables completely declassified … It is clear that when Julian entered the embassy there was already some sort of deal. We see in his work a parallel with our struggle for national sovereignty and the democratisation of international relations.”
Assange took refuge in Ecuador’s embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over allegations of sexual misconduct. He is said to be living in one room of the diplomatic building, where he has a high-speed internet connection.
Ecuadorean diplomats believe Assange is at risk of being extradited from Sweden to the US, where he could face the death penalty. Assange’s supporters claim the US has already secretly indicted him following WikiLeaks’ release in 2010 of US diplomatic cables, as well as classified Afghan and Iraq war logs.
Correa and Patiño have both said that Ecuador will take a sovereign decision regarding Assange. They say they view his case as a humanitarian act, and are seeking to protect Assange’s right to life and freedom. On Monday the state-run newspaper El Telégrafo confirmed a decision had been made, although the paper did not specify what that decision was. It said that senior officials had been meeting in the past few days to iron out the last legal details.
Two weeks ago Assange’s mother Christine Assange paid Ecuador an official visit, following an invitation by Ecuador’s foreign affairs ministry. She met with Correa and Patiño, as well as with other top politicians, including Fernando Cordero, head of Ecuador’s legislature. Both Patiño and Ms Assange appeared visibly touched during a press conference, which had to be briefly suspended when Ms Assange started crying.
Ms Assange also held several public meetings in government buildings, and in one case she was accompanied by the head of Assange’s defence team, Baltasar Garzón, the former Spanish judge who ordered the London arrest of Chile’s General Pinochet.
Other top political figures in Ecuador have been vocal about the government’s support of Assange’s bid. “Our comrade the president, who leads our international policy, will grant Julian Assange asylum,” said María Augusta Calle, a congresswoman of the president’s party, and former head of the Sovereignty, Foreign Affairs and Latin American Integration Commission during the 2008 Constitutional Assembly, during a meeting with Ms Assange.
Over the past year and a half, Assange has remained in touch with Ecuador’s embassy in London. In April, he interviewed President Correa for his TV show on Russia Today, the English-language channel funded by the Russian government. The interview, which lasted 75 minutes, included a pally exchange in which Assange and Correa bonded over freedom of speech and the negative role of the US in Latin America. At one point Correa joked: “Are you having a lot of fun with the interview, Julian?” Assange replied: “I’m enjoying your jokes a great deal, yes.”
Correa has made international headlines this year for what critics have called a government crackdown on private media. Analysts say that granting the WikiLeaks founder asylum could be a way for him to depict himself as a champion of freedom of speech ahead of the February 2013 presidential elections, in which he is expected to run again.
Source
Amazing news. Now truth advocates must show support to Ecuador given that many have promised trade sanctions with the country if it was to grant asylum. 
Wikileaks has exposed so much corruption, horrendous war crimes & injustices all over the world. Julian Assange is a true journalist & hero. 

Julian Assange granted political asylum in Ecuador
August 14, 2012

Ecuador's president Rafael Correa has agreed to give Julian Assange asylum, officials within Ecuador’s government have said.

The WikiLeaks founder has been holed up at Ecuador’s London embassy since June 19, when he officially requested political asylum.

"Ecuador will grant asylum to Julian Assange," said an official in the Ecuadorean capital Quito, who is familiar with the government discussions.

On Monday, Correa told state-run ECTV that he would decide this week whether to grant asylum to Assange. Correa said a large amount of material about international law had to be examined to make a responsible informed decision.

Ecuador’s foreign minister Ricardo Patiño indicated that the president would reveal his answer once the Olympic Games were over. But it remains unclear if giving Assange asylum will allow him to leave Britain and fly to Ecuador, or amounts to little more than a symbolic gesture. At the moment he faces the prospect of arrest as soon as he leaves the embassy for breaching his bail conditions.

"For Mr Assange to leave England, he should have a safe pass from the British [government]. Will that be possible? That’s an issue we have to take into account," Patino told Reuters on Tuesday.

Government sources in Quito confirmed that despite the outstanding legal issues Correa would grant Assange asylum – a move which would annoy Britain, the US and Sweden. They added that the offer was made to Assange several months ago, well before he sought refuge in the embassy, and following confidential negotiations with senior London embassy staff.

The official with knowledge of the discussions said the embassy had discussed Assange’s asylum request. The British government, however, “discouraged the idea,” the offical said. The Swedish government was also “not very collaborative”, the official said.

The official added: “We see Assange’s request as a humanitarian issue. The contact between the Ecuadorean government and WikiLeaks goes back to May 2011, when we became the first country to see the leaked US embassy cables completely declassified … It is clear that when Julian entered the embassy there was already some sort of deal. We see in his work a parallel with our struggle for national sovereignty and the democratisation of international relations.”

Assange took refuge in Ecuador’s embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over allegations of sexual misconduct. He is said to be living in one room of the diplomatic building, where he has a high-speed internet connection.

Ecuadorean diplomats believe Assange is at risk of being extradited from Sweden to the US, where he could face the death penalty. Assange’s supporters claim the US has already secretly indicted him following WikiLeaks’ release in 2010 of US diplomatic cables, as well as classified Afghan and Iraq war logs.

Correa and Patiño have both said that Ecuador will take a sovereign decision regarding Assange. They say they view his case as a humanitarian act, and are seeking to protect Assange’s right to life and freedom. On Monday the state-run newspaper El Telégrafo confirmed a decision had been made, although the paper did not specify what that decision was. It said that senior officials had been meeting in the past few days to iron out the last legal details.

Two weeks ago Assange’s mother Christine Assange paid Ecuador an official visit, following an invitation by Ecuador’s foreign affairs ministry. She met with Correa and Patiño, as well as with other top politicians, including Fernando Cordero, head of Ecuador’s legislature. Both Patiño and Ms Assange appeared visibly touched during a press conference, which had to be briefly suspended when Ms Assange started crying.

Ms Assange also held several public meetings in government buildings, and in one case she was accompanied by the head of Assange’s defence team, Baltasar Garzón, the former Spanish judge who ordered the London arrest of Chile’s General Pinochet.

Other top political figures in Ecuador have been vocal about the government’s support of Assange’s bid. “Our comrade the president, who leads our international policy, will grant Julian Assange asylum,” said María Augusta Calle, a congresswoman of the president’s party, and former head of the Sovereignty, Foreign Affairs and Latin American Integration Commission during the 2008 Constitutional Assembly, during a meeting with Ms Assange.

Over the past year and a half, Assange has remained in touch with Ecuador’s embassy in London. In April, he interviewed President Correa for his TV show on Russia Today, the English-language channel funded by the Russian government. The interview, which lasted 75 minutes, included a pally exchange in which Assange and Correa bonded over freedom of speech and the negative role of the US in Latin America. At one point Correa joked: “Are you having a lot of fun with the interview, Julian?” Assange replied: “I’m enjoying your jokes a great deal, yes.”

Correa has made international headlines this year for what critics have called a government crackdown on private media. Analysts say that granting the WikiLeaks founder asylum could be a way for him to depict himself as a champion of freedom of speech ahead of the February 2013 presidential elections, in which he is expected to run again.

Source

Amazing news. Now truth advocates must show support to Ecuador given that many have promised trade sanctions with the country if it was to grant asylum. 

Wikileaks has exposed so much corruption, horrendous war crimes & injustices all over the world. Julian Assange is a true journalist & hero. 

From the beginning, US politicians and news commentators were screaming out for his murder in the most brutal way. There seemed to be no filter at all in how they were feeling; calling out for brutal forms of murder, inciting murder against my son. And still in the last few weeks – I think it was the Fox News presenter Kathleen McFarland (Fox News’ National Security Analyst) who was screaming out for Julian’s execution. This is somebody who has not broken the law and has done nothing but what any good investigative journalism would do – just to bring truth to the people – and has won very many awards for that.
Christine Assange, mother of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in a recent interview, “‘If America can do it to Manning, What will happen to my son?’” from RT