2006-2010
Press Statement: In this election, vote with your wallet, Vote WikiLeaks
2012-09-27
Transcript of Julian Assange Address to the UN
2012-09-26
US Military Refers to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as the "enemy" with the "victims" being "society"
2012-09-26
Background for UN Talk - Ongoing Investigation into WikiLeaks
2012-09-11
Inside the secrets and lies behind ’Secrets and Lies’
2012-09-10
The public relations state: full details of WikiLeaks & Assange Ofcom complaint over "WikiLeaks: Secrets & Lies"
2012-08-23
Statement on U.K. intentions and pressures prior to Ecuadorian embassy siege
2012-08-19
Official Statement by Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy
2012-08-16
Statement on UK threat to storm Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange
2012-07-18
Press Release: WikiLeaks opens path through banking siege. Donations open.
2012-06-29
Press Statement: By Julian Assange Defense Fund Outside the Ecuadorian Embassy
2012-06-28
Press Release – WikiLeaks: Beat the Blockade CD
2012-06-21
Wikileaks has launched a case against Valitor hf. (formerly VISA Iceland)
2012-06-19
Effective Declaration of Abandonment from Australian Government
2012-04-18
Smear and Enjoy
2012-04-17
Press Release - 500 Days of the WikiLeaks Banking Blockade
2012-04-05
Assange Submissions to the Leveson Inquiry
2012-03-06
Kristinn Hrafnsson: The Great WikiLeaks War on Sweden?
2012-03-06
Press release: WikiLeaks on Recent Fabricated Stories in the Swedish Press
2012-02-15
WikiLeaks denounces UNESCO after WikiLeaks banned from UNESCO conference on WikiLeaks
2012-01-23
New Assange TV Series
2011-12-16
Statement on Bradley Manning Case
2011-11-30
Guardian’s "WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies" Documentary:
2011-10-23
WikiLeaks Press Statement: WikiLeaks vs the Banks
2011-09-22
Julian Assange: Statement on the Unauthorised, Secret Publishing of the Julian Assange “autobiography” by Canongate
2011-09-19
WikiLeaks Launches the First of Four Fundraising Auctions
2011-08-24
US espionage investigation against WikiLeaks: PATRIOT Act order unsealed
2011-06-15
In Conversation with Julian Assange Part II
2011-05-24
"WikiSecrets" Julian Assange Full Interview Footage
2011-05-23
In Conversation with Julian Assange Part I
Press Statement: In this election, vote with your wallet, Vote WikiLeaks
Wednesday 3rd October, 08:00 BST
[fr] Communiqué de presse : Dans cette élection, votez avec votre porte-monnaie, Votez WikiLeaks
[vi] Bản phát Báo chí: trong cuộc tổng tuyển cử này, hãy bỏ phiếu dùng ví tiền, Bỏ phiếu cho Wikileaks nhé (Vietnamese)
[zh] 新闻公报：在此次选举中，用你的钱包投票，支持维基解密。
[pt_br] Declaração à imprensa: Nestas eleições, vote com sua carteira – vote Wikileaks
“Help WikiLeaks run the United States over the next four years”
WikiLeaks enters U.S. election campaign.
Last Friday, on 28 September, the Pentagon again threatened WikiLeaks. Pentagon spokesman George Little demanded WikiLeaks destroy its publications, including the Iraq War logs which revealed the killings of more than 100,000 civilians. Little said: “continued possession by WikiLeaks of classified information belonging to the United States government represents a continuing violation of law”. The Pentagon also again “warned Mr Assange and WikiLeaks” against “soliciting” material from U.S. military whistleblowers.
In response, WikiLeaks has decided to intervene in the U.S. election campaign.
The United States government claims Mr Assange and the WikiLeaks organization are within its jurisdiction. In reply, we place the Obama administration within our jurisdiction. All American school children are taught that being subject to laws without representation is an injustice. This is the backbone of the American Revolution. We claim our representation and now initiate a campaign to transform Democratic and Republican votes into economic and political support for WikiLeaks and its First Amendment values. This election day, do not vote for the Republican or Democratic parties. Instead, cast the only vote that matters. Vote with your wallet – vote for WikiLeaks.
The Democratic Party promised to open government. But instead it is building a state within a state, placing nearly five million Americans under the national security clearance system. It has classified more documents than any previous administration, classifying even the process used to decide who will live and who will be killed. The U.S. administration hurtles towards dystopia: secret laws, secret processes, secret budgets, secret bailouts, secret killings, secret mass spying, secret drones and secret detention without charge. The collapse of the Soviet Union could have led to the withdrawal of the U.S. security state, but without moral competition from another system it has grown unchecked to influence almost every American policy. Four more years in the same direction cannot be tolerated.
The Obama administration continues to conduct a “whole of government” investigation of “unprecedented scale and nature” into WikiLeaks and its people. It has fuelled the extrajudicial banking blockade against the organization and has held an alleged WikiLeaks source, Bradley Manning, in conditions that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, found had amounted to torture. Mr Assange has been formally found to be a political refugee, but U.S. ambassadors warned countries such as Switzerland not to offer him asylum. President Obama has called Bradley Manning guilty before trial and Vice-President Biden has labelled Julian Assange a "hi-tech terrorist". The Obama-Biden campaign brags of having prosecuted twice as many national security whistleblowers as “all previous administrations combined”.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.... This is not acceptable.
Politicians always say your decision, come election-time, will determine the future. But, as has been seen with the Obama administration, deciding on who gets into formal office is not a meaningful choice, because when you vote your party into government you also vote the government, including all its agencies and friends, into your party. Thus, parties taking office are eliminated as the restraining voice of opposition.
But there is another option.
Government agencies and corporations know that knowledge is power. That is why they spend literally billions to keep their plans and actions secret from all of us.
They know that together we can force them to act differently.
It was WikiLeaks’ revelations – not the actions of President Obama – that forced the U.S. administration out of the Iraq War. By exposing the killing of Iraqi children, WikiLeaks directly motivated the Iraqi government to strip the U.S. military of legal immunity, which in turn forced the U.S. withdrawal. http://salon.com/2011/10/23/wikilea...
It was WikiLeaks’ revelations and pan-Arab activists, not the Obama administration, that helped to trigger the Arab Spring. While WikiLeaks was exposing dictators from Yemen to Cairo, Vice-President Joseph Biden was calling Hosni Mubarak a democrat, Hillary Clinton was calling his government “stable” and the U.S. administration was colluding with Yemeni dictator Saleh to bomb his own people.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201... http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/...
And it was WikiLeaks’ revelations, not the White House, that led to the reform of the largest children’s hospital network in the United States.http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Report_on...
Last year, the Pentagon got $662 billion for its 2012 war chest. For WikiLeaks to continue its work to bring transparency to powerful institutions through the mass publication of leaks with the greatest potential to lead to more just forms of governance, we need to build a bigger ’war chest’ too.
In early December 2010, WikiLeaks was receiving $120,000 per day in donations from the general public. In response to pressure from Washington, and entirely outside the law, financial institutions including Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of America and Western Union, erected a banking blockade against WikiLeaks, stripping the organization of 95% of its funding. Although WikiLeaks has won every court case to date against the blockade, these Washington-linked institutions continue to appeal.
So, for the next 34 days, beginning on 3 October 2012, we are launching a new fundraising campaign running up to Election Day, 6 November.
You can still donate to WikiLeaks using a variety of easy methods, including workarounds for Visa, MasterCard and PayPal. These donations go to fund WikiLeaks’ publishing and infrastructure costs and our legal costs to fight the financial blockade. We are expecting an answer shortly on Visa’s appeal against the Icelandic court’s ruling that declared their blockade illegal, and decision-makers are expected to meet soon on our European anti-trust banking case.
If you wish to contribute to Julian Assange’s legal defence costs, you can still use your credit card but you will need to make a separate donation to the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Staff Defence Fund, administered and audited by Derek Rothera & Co. Full details are on our donate page. You can also donate to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund from our site.
"The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting", Milan Kundera.
Julian Assange
The URL for this campaign is: http://wikileaks.org/donate2012
- *******************************************
torsdagen den 4:e oktober 2012
The Constitutional State of Sweden is threatened by the Case of Assange
This article was published in the biggest Newspaper in Sweden, Dagens Nyheter, on the 19th of August 2012.The legal circus surrounding the case of Julian Assange has now attained proportions uprecedented in legal history. Julian Assange is the only man who has ever been hunted in this fashion across several continents for questioning over the alleged crimes of sexual molestation and rape.
We have therefore reported the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, to the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman, JO, because of her handling of the case. The day after Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador, oddly enough, JO Hans Gunnar Axberger dismissed the complaint, citing the ongoing legal proceedings involving Assange.
The facts of the matter are quite simple. Julian Assange had sex with two women on separate occasions during his stay in Sweden. The two women went together to a female police inspector, who was acquainted with one of the two, with the stated intent to compel Assange to undergo an HIV test. However, the police inspector, instead of processing the case according to Swedish law, filed a police report of rape subject to public prosecution. It is unlikely either of the two women had any idea of the magnitude their visit to the police would take.
Next, a prosecutor decided to order Assange arrested in absentia, although he was in the country. The next day, yet another prosecutor found that there was no basis for charges and dropped the matter.
On August 30, 2010, Assange was interviewed, and he denied the allegations. The next day, lawyer Claes Borgström, who had offered to be plaintiffs’ counsel for the two women, contacted his old friend, the prosecutor Marianne Ny, who in turn decided to reopen the case.
Julian Assange remained in Sweden in order to be available for interviews for five entire weeks, until 27 September, when he left the country after receiving permission from the Prosecutor's Office. This is the context in which Marianne Ny issued a European arrest warrant. Thereafter, Assange offered on several occassions to be questioned in London either in person or via video link. Oddly, Prosecutor Ny categorically rejected these offers, even though such interview methods have been used in other cases.
We are, like Julian Assange's international lawyer, the famous Baltasar Garzón of Spain, deeply concerned about the lack of guarantee of security and transparency, and on what legal grounds action has been taken against Julian Assange. The harassment he has suffered has wrought havoc on his physical and mental health.
The threat against his person is further complicated by the complex behavior of Marianne Ny, representing the Swedish government, towards him.The result is that Julian Assange's basic rights and freedoms under the United Nations, and his human rights under the European Convention, have been declared irrelevant.
When people seek political asylum, it usually involves seeking protection from a rogue state and, in this case, it appears that Sweden is just such a rogue. It is enough to refer to the cases of Thomas Quick / Sture Bergwall or Catrine da Costa for devastating comparisons.We two journalists with many decades of experience in press, radio and television both in Sweden and abroad view with increasing horror how uncritical and biased in favor of the political establishment the journalism is in the case Assange.
Everything seems to be aimed to getting Assange extradited to Sweden at any cost, rather than critically examining the prosecutor, Marianne Ny’s, actions that are perfectly coordinated with those of her friend, the lawyer Claes Borgström. Prosecutor Ny has for example said in her inner circle "even if I am wrong, I won’t change my mind."
In the arrest memo from 2010, available online for all to see and spanning over 100 pages, it is clear that both of the two women themselves sought out contact with Assange.
The leaked arrest memo was a legal bomb which has now been mostly forgotten and buried in all the legal twists and turns of the extradition hearings in London, the flight to Ecuador's Embassy and the question of how Assange might be able to get away, away from the once prestigious Swedish machinery of justice.
The case of Julian Assange has revealed the State feminism and its propaganda machinery that are at present in power in this country. It is a machinery in which men-hating radical feminists without historical roots conspire with journalists who do not understand journalism’s critical task and members of the judiciary who pursue a career under the equal rights and opportunities doctrine.This machinery views the ordinary Swedish man as a potential rapist and already condemned Julian Assange of sex crimes before being proven guilty or innocent. This is the fashion in which the man with the status of a rock star became one of the world's most hunted men.
Liberation feminism was hijacked in the late 1980s when it was disarmed and renamed 'Jämställdhet' (the equal rights and opportunities doctrine) and co-opted into the power apparatus. “Jämställdhet” became the state norm and an ideology in Sweden. And it became a career ladder, especially in politics, civil service and in the judicial system.
Many liberation feminists disappeared into Swedish universities, where they transformed our struggle into 'scientific knowledge', and became elite feminists. They got money from the State, as universities in Sweden are publicly funded. Instead of talking about 'the sexes' they started talking about 'genders', and the struggle no longer focused on transforming the state apparatus: it switched to targeting the male sex and men as sexual creatures. The present totalitarian gender ideology was also promoted by the Swedish media, which does what is required from it by the State.In another turn, and especially in the tabloids, selling sex like never before has turned the concept of cynicism to an "understatement".The Assange case tickles the fancy of journalists who in turn are seducing their readers, listeners and viewers with an exceptionally biased account. In addition, moralistic editorial writers across the country scream for justice for the demeaned women without any reflection on what really happened those days in August 2010, between Julian Assange and the two women.
How the case ends may well be decisive to whether Sweden should continue to be called a state governed by law, in which civil rights are not violated and the European Convention on Human Rights is worth more than the ink it was written with.Helene Bergman, journalistAnders Carlgren, journalistTranslated by Traci Birge6 kommentarer:
OK I kind of agree with the above, but did Mr Assange take an HIV test and send its result to the two women concerned? Because it seems obvious to me that their worry and insecurity was the main reason for the whole story. Did he put their worries to rest? Great if he did, but if he did not, why? And this has nothing to do with feminism, law and hacking, just a human dimension.
SvaraJanus Avivson, London
avivson@gmail.com
Hi, Janus! A very good question, who has totally disappeared! I think he said yes to take an HIV-test, but then I don`t know what happen. I think the discussion has gone like this:
SvaraIF the two women were afraid, they could take their own HIV-test. One of the women did a rape investigation in a hospital. Then of course they also took an HIV-test. And if that have been proved positive I am sure JA have also been accused of that as it is illegal in Sweden to have sex with anyone if you know you are HIV-positive.
I'm an assange supporter but need to point out that you can't reliably have an HIV test straight after the sex you think may have exposed you to the virus:
SvaraThis is from an HIV info site (http://aids.about.com/od/hivpreventionquestions/f/exposure.htm):
Most HIV tests diagnose HIV infection by detecting antibodies produced by an individual's immune system when they are exposed to HIV. However, it does take some time for enough of those antibodies to be present to be detected by the antibody HIV test. The time it takes for people to have produced enough antibodies varies; anywhere from 2 to 8 weeks or longer, with the average being about 25 days. But this can vary from person to person so a good rule of thumb to follow is if your negative test was done less than 3 months after your potential exposure, you should get another test after 3 months time. While about 97% of people will develop HIV antibodies after an infection, it may take 6 months to produce antibodies in some cases. In our clinic we recommend HIV testing after a potential exposure at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after exposure.
It appears as though Assange has taken a test which came back as negative:
SvaraThis from Naomi Wolf's article : http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/
"Sources close to the investigation confirm that indeed Assange was asked by police to take an HIV test, which came back negative."
Also this section corroborates your assertion that the women should get testing done for themselves. (However I still question how soon a reliable test could be done) :
"Rape victims usually fear STD’s or AIDS infection, naturally enough, and the normal police and prosecutorial guidance is for them to take their own battery of tests – you don’t need the man’s test results to know if you have contracted a disease. Normal rape kit processing–in Sweden as elsewhere–includes such tests for the alleged victim as a matter of course, partly to help prevent any contact between the victim and the assailant outside legal channels."
Thank you @Humunculus Flanell
SvaraIt appears that the rape charges were set up to be a diversion and yet a maneuver to prosecute Assange, then take the opportunity to prosecute for other charges.
SvaraRaderaAssange needs to pick out a better partner, someone who's truly interested in him, has respect, etc.
Funny how the background of the women weren't shown in the news.....they could've been two barmaids/barflies who operate as a team, etc. who knows?.....did they want to get pregnant? if they were insecure about sexually transmitted disease, why didn't they provide the condoms? it just may be that they were there to set Assange up because there are people hired by government(s) to do that kind of work.....heard about it when I worked for the IRS/Internal Revenue Service - training in San Francisco, California.