Wednesday, January 23, 2013

"WIKILEAKS LEGAL ADVISER: WE STEAL SECRETS" OVERLOOKS KEY FACETS OF JULIAN ASSANGE'S PERSECUTION"

"WikiLeaks Legal Adviser: "We Steal Secrets" Overlooks Key Facets of Julian Assange’s Persecution
Alex Gibney’s new documentary, "We Steal Secrets," bills itself as "the Story of WikiLeaks," but our guest Jennifer Robinson, a legal adviser to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, claims it misses key facts. "This is, of course, a film about WikiLeaks, about the largest leak in history," Robinson says. "It touches on incredibly important issues about journalism and whistleblowing. But unfortunately, I do not think that this film does justice to those issues. ... This film does not recognize the threats that WikiLeaks faces in terms of potential U.S. prosecution." [includes rush transcript]
Guest:
Jennifer Robinson, London-based legal adviser for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. She is also director of legal advocacy at the Bertha Foundation.

Links

Editor's Picks

Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.Donate >

Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: We’re broadcasting from Park City, Utah, from the Sundance Film Festival. To talk more about the documentary We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks, we’re joined by Jennifer Robinson, legal adviser for Julian Assange.
We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Jennifer.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: You watched the film. What were your thoughts?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, I think this is a film that touches upon an incredibly important subject matter. This is, of course, a film about WikiLeaks, about the largest leak in history. It touches on incredibly important issues about journalism and whistleblowing. But unfortunately, I do not think that this film does justice to those issues.
AMY GOODMAN: Why?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: In particular, I think—look, filmmaking is—of course, has its challenges. I think Alex Gibney is an incredible filmmaker and has made some very important films. But filmmakers have to make choices. And what I think are interesting about the choices here is that this film does not recognize the threats that WikiLeaks faces in terms of potential U.S. prosecution. It does not reference the grand jury. It seeks to present Julian Assange as a fantasist and a paranoid fantasist, while not recognizing the threats that he faces. In particular, the film states specifically that Ecuador granted asylum without evidence. Now, we know it doesn’t refer—the film doesn’t refer to the grand jury. These are objectively available facts that are on the public record. There is a grand jury in existence. There is an active, ongoing criminal investigation against Julian Assange. It was discovered through diplomatic cables from the Australian government that the criminal investigation is of unprecedented size and scale. Now, this film does not reference that in any shape or form, and I think that’s an incredible oversight.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play a clip of Julian Assange. When we interviewed him, he was speaking inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London. And this is the clip where I ask him why he believes that if he were sent to Sweden, he could be extradited to the United States, and if he’s actually negotiating with the Swedish government right now.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, Amy, Ecuador has really stepped up to the plate and must be congratulated. I have been found to be, through a formal process, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a political refugee and have been granted political asylum, in relation to what has been happening in the United States and allied countries and their behavior—Sweden and the United Kingdom. The situation for me now is that I have been here for five months in this embassy; prior to that, 18 months under house arrest; prior to that, being chased around the world for about six months by U.S. intelligence and its allies.
Now, I must correct an earlier statement that you made—this has become common in the press—saying that I was here in relation to Sweden. The reason I am here is essentially in relation to the United States. But the Swedish government said publicly that it would imprison me without charge. And in such a situation, I’d not be able to apply for asylum. Now, the Ecuadorean government has asked the Swedish government to give a guarantee that I would not be extradited to the United States. We have asked for a long time for such a guarantee. That has been refused. All the regular processes have been refused in this case. You know, it’s an extremely odd and bizarre case, and I encourage everyone to go and look at that aspect of the case at justice4assange.com. And you can see report after report. You can see all the material that the police claim to be true and all the things that have occurred, the Cambridge International & Comparative Law Journal condemning the decisions that were made here in the British courts.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Julian Assange speaking to us from inside the Ecuadorean embassy, where he’s been holed up for something like eight months now, not clear when he will come out. But, Jennifer Robinson, our guest now, the legal adviser to Julian Assange, your response to filmmaker Alex Gibney saying that why should he be above the law? Why should he get an assurance from the Swedish government he won’t be extradited to the United States? Because the Swedish government would take that in turn, if the request came in.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, of course, he’s—we’re not suggesting that he’s above the law. This film fails to recognize the reason that he was—that he sought asylum. It is not with respect to the allegations in Sweden. He has offered his testimony with respect to Sweden. The Swedish prosecutor has, in other cases, interviewed suspects outside of the country. [inaudible-technical problems]"
 
Assange sufre una clara persecución: Garzón

 
Dpa, Afp y Pl
Periódico La Jornada
Jueves 17 de enero de 2013, p. 22
 
Santiago, 16 de enero. El ex juez español Baltasar Garzón, quien defiende al fundador de Wikileaks, Julian Assange, afirmó hoy que la acción judicial contra éste es una clara persecución y responde a la frustración de una administración que vio cómo se revelaba información que mantenía en secreto, en alusión al gobierno estadunidense de Barack Obama.
 
“Lo que Wikileaks y Julian Assange han hecho es un gran servicio a todos aquellos que formamos el género humano: se han revelado una serie de situaciones que distan de lo que debe ser una adecuada acción diplomática, acciones de empresas y violaciones graves de derechos humanos. Eso no puede ser nunca delictivo”, afirmó a una emisora chilena.

No obstante, advirtió que sería una brutalidad que el controvertido ex hacker australiano pueda ser condenado por espionaje, ya que entonces el juicio podría terminar en cadena perpetua o muerte.
 
El ex juez, de visita en Chile
 
De visita en Chile para participar en el Congreso del Futuro que realiza el Senado de la República, Garzón precisó que la acción contra Assange responde a la frustración de una administración determinada, que ve que por esos medios se ha puesto ante la opinión pública hechos que no quería que se conocieran, sin mencionar al gobierno de Obama.

Assange se halla desde hace más de seis meses refugiado en la embajada de Ecuador en Londres, ante el temor de ser finalmente extraditado a Estados Unidos, donde podría enfrentar cargos de espionaje.

Julian Assange lo que quiere es rendir cuentas ante la justicia sueca, pero con garantías de que no va a ser extraditado a Estados Unidos, dijo Garzón.

Suecia reclama al australiano por presuntos delitos sexuales en ese país, que él ha negado y atribuye a una persecución política. Así, para su defensor la mejor salida es un acuerdo diplomático que entregue garantías.

El jurista, que alcanzó notoriedad internacional en 1998 tras ordenar la detención de Augusto Pinochet en Londres, afirmó que el retorno del dictador a Chile, por razones humanitarias, fue una decisión política dentro de la ley de extradición. Dijo estar convencido de que el ex dictador podía enfrentar un juicio y que su liberación le dejó la sensación de disgusto y pena por las víctimas.

Enlaces:

Los cables sobre México en WikiLeaks

Sitio especial de La Jornada sobre WikiLeaks "

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/01/17/mundo/022n2mun
 
 

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A2KK_JOMnwBRhSwATxqbvZx4?p=FIDEIIUS+Assange&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGdW2VnwBRihgABPxXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGFvAzAEZnIDeWZwLXQtNzAxBGhvc3RwdmlkA0xVeFNLRW9HZEVlS0hXdEtVUUNmakE2Z1l4RU5qMUVBbjVVQUJvZ0QEbl9ncHMDMARuX3ZwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDRklERUlJVVMgV2lraWxlYWtzBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDTVNZMDA3?p=FIDEIIUS+Wikileaks&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701

http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2013/01/international-community-stop.html
---------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S5SiEF1JoA

http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2013/01/01/cubadebate-lo-mas-leido-y-comentado-en-2012/

http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2013/01/el-ciberestado-policiaco-oliver-stone.html

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113C/2340

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~urrutia/chicano/Vasconcelos/escudoUNAM.html

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-image-face-20130105

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=FIDEIIUS+BLOG&oq=FIDEIIUS+BLOG&gs_l=img.3...531634.533270.0.533301.13.10.0.0.0.0.244.1207.1j7j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.h2sPrEyVDV4&biw=1024&bih=640&cad=cbv&sei=v4_tUNqgM6_a2wWhmICABg

http://dof.gob.mx/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTfT9zQ0C5A

http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/12/el-resistirse-lo-irresistible-no.html

No comments:

Post a Comment