The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 293. Julian Assange： Free Speech Martyr？ Featuring Stella Assange

00:00:00.940 Hey everyone, real quick before you skip, I want to talk to you about something serious and important.

00:00:06.480 Dr. Jordan Peterson has created a new series that could be a lifeline for those battling depression and anxiety.

00:00:12.740 We know how isolating and overwhelming these conditions can be, and we wanted to take a moment to reach out to those listening who may be struggling.

00:00:20.100 With decades of experience helping patients, Dr. Peterson offers a unique understanding of why you might be feeling this way in his new series.

00:00:27.420 He provides a roadmap towards healing, showing that while the journey isn't easy, it's absolutely possible to find your way forward.

00:00:35.360 If you're suffering, please know you are not alone. There's hope, and there's a path to feeling better.

00:00:41.780 Go to Daily Wire Plus now and start watching Dr. Jordan B. Peterson on depression and anxiety.

00:00:47.460 Let this be the first step towards the brighter future you deserve.

00:00:57.420 Hello everyone.

00:01:10.400 I'm here today speaking with Stella Assange, who is the wife of Julian Paul Assange.

00:01:18.740 And I'm going to start with his bio in a strange twist, since he at the moment can't speak for himself, and then I'm going to turn to hers.

00:01:25.900 Julian Paul Assange is an Australian editor, publisher, and activist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006.

00:01:36.420 In 2010, WikiLeaks published a series of leaks provided by American intel analyst Chelsea Manning and attracted widespread international attention and outrage, I would say.

00:01:50.600 In early 2010, Manning, who reported being horrified by the behavior of then his colleagues,

00:01:59.100 declosed three quarters of a million classified and unclassified but sensitive military-slash-diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks, an online news site.

00:02:11.080 The U.S. government then launched a continuing criminal investigation into WikiLeaks.

00:02:16.420 In 2010, Assange began to be pursued, and I say began because it went on for a very long time, began to be pursued by Swedish authorities for alleged sexual misconduct episodes.

00:02:36.020 Those charges were eventually rescinded.

00:02:39.000 U.K. authorities, operating as a consequence of the Swedish call, arranged a potential extradition.

00:02:48.000 Assange, at that point, broke bail, violated U.K. law, and took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy,

00:02:57.560 where he remained under different conditions for many years, from 2010 to 2019.

00:03:04.640 But was finally arrested and returned to the U.K., where he has been imprisoned since in Belmarsh, a Category A prison in London.

00:03:16.920 He currently faces the possibility of extradition to the U.S.

00:03:21.960 and possible prosecution there on some 18 essentially espionage-related charges.

00:03:28.320 According to the Irish Times recently, it's now a year and a half since Assange completed his 50-week sentence for jumping bail.

00:03:38.780 And this is where the Julian Assange story gets even stranger, if possible, despite the fact that there are no new charges against him in the U.K.

00:03:48.380 He is still in the Category A prison, Belmarsh, where he has spent much of his time in solitary confinement.

00:03:57.560 In May 2019, Assange was brought up on 17 new charges relating to the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917,

00:04:07.040 and they carried with them those charges a maximum sentence of 170 years.

00:04:11.320 The Obama administration considered charging Assange similarly previously,

00:04:17.400 but decided not to, given concern that it might negatively affect investigative journalism as such,

00:04:23.300 and could well be unconstitutional.

00:04:26.560 The New York Times stated that it and other news organizations obtained and obtained documents in the same fashion as WikiLeaks,

00:04:35.640 and could not see that WikiLeaks' publications differed legally from other journalist publications of classified information.

00:04:45.860 After Assange's arrest and first indictment, the New York Times editorial board wrote that,

00:04:52.280 quote,

00:04:52.520 The case of Mr. Assange, who got his start as a computer hacker, I think this is a crucial insight here,

00:05:01.000 illuminates the conflict of freedom and harm in the new technologies.

00:05:05.640 And could help draw a sharp line between legitimate journalism and dangerous cybercrime.

00:05:13.760 And that the administration has begun well by charging Mr. Assange with an indisputable crime.

00:05:22.040 But there's always a risk with this administration, one that labels the free press as, quote,

00:05:27.500 the enemy of the people, that the prosecution of Mr. Assange could become an assault on the First Amendment and whistleblowers.

00:05:35.640 As I said, I'm talking today with his wife, Nii Stella Morris, and was originally Sarah Gonzalez,

00:05:43.480 and she changed her name to try to maintain a certain semblance of privacy in the midst of this unbelievable chaos and complexity.

00:05:53.200 Ms. Morris was also Assange's lawyer.

00:05:56.300 The couple was married in 2022, although they had established a long-term private relationship during Assange's extensive time in Ecuador.

00:06:06.140 They had two sons during that period.

00:06:10.060 Stella Assange was a 28-year-old lawyer when she first met Julian in 2011.

00:06:16.500 Interested in the work of WikiLeaks and believing that the non-profit media organization

00:06:22.540 was shedding valid and necessary light on unacceptable corruption and crimes of war.

00:06:29.340 She has said of her husband, quote,

00:06:31.540 Julian doesn't like people who are deceitful.

00:06:35.440 He doesn't like opportunists.

00:06:37.040 And he can be quite direct.

00:06:39.240 Also, people who are on the autism spectrum, Mr. Assange has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome,

00:06:47.120 don't score particularly high on the agreeableness scale.

00:06:53.260 Both Julian and his wife are freedom of information champions

00:06:58.120 and had experienced similar childhoods, similar parentages, and similar extensive mobility.

00:07:05.160 And that gave them something in common in addition to their interest in freedom of expression.

00:07:11.520 She completed a degree in law and politics at SOAS in London,

00:07:14.900 her MSc at Oxford in refugee law,

00:07:18.200 and then a master's in Madrid in public international law.

00:07:22.560 And so, welcome, Stella.

00:07:25.040 It's very good of you to sit and talk to me, with me, under these conditions,

00:07:29.320 which must be incredibly stressful.

00:07:31.480 I've really never seen someone in as complex and tangled a web as your husband,

00:07:41.500 and you, for that matter.

00:07:43.060 And so, that's really something,

00:07:44.760 because I've met people who have been in very complex webs,

00:07:47.420 and your situation is unbelievably extreme.

00:07:51.780 I was struck by the New York Times comments on,

00:07:55.900 and proclamation that Julian was really a test case for the limitations on the journalistic front

00:08:06.480 of the new technologies that enable such widespread disclosure of heretofore hidden secrets.

00:08:14.480 I mean, part of this, I would say, is a consequence of just magnitude of operation.

00:08:19.140 Now, the Manning leaks were 750,000 documents.

00:08:23.660 And of course, back in the days of mere print and highly limited access to bandwidth on the radio and TV front,

00:08:30.720 there isn't a possibility that any journalist could ever cause 750,000 pages worth of trouble at once.

00:08:38.560 And so, I see, at least in part, that the conundrum in relationship to your husband is his whistleblowing proclivity

00:08:47.320 in combination with the mass scale of the operation that computer technology enables.

00:08:54.660 And so, it looks to me like you two are caught at the nexus of, what, radically new technology, personality, and law.

00:09:03.740 And so, it's not precisely as if I have sympathy for the fact that he's been vilified and prosecuted so assiduously,

00:09:13.960 but I can understand the complexity of the situation in some real sense that's given rise to this.

00:09:20.900 So, the first thing I'm kind of curious about, if you don't mind,

00:09:26.520 is what elements of your husband's situation would you like to highlight to begin with?

00:09:33.980 I mean, the most compelling to me seems to me the fact, obviously, that he's still in prison

00:09:38.680 and under pretty dire circumstances, despite the fact that, in some sense,

00:09:44.540 the legal justification for his sentencing has, well, at least arguably expired.

00:09:50.120 And so, maybe you could fill everybody in on that,

00:09:52.340 and then we can continue with the conversation as it unfolds.

00:09:55.400 Well, I think that Julian is, and that he will historically, with time, be seen in this way,

00:10:04.020 is the foremost political prisoner of the West.

00:10:08.000 He is a critic, he's a dissident, and he's also an innovator.

00:10:12.920 What Julian did was he brought his past background as a computer programmer

00:10:19.260 and computer security expert into journalism.

00:10:24.940 He understood, before anyone else, the architecture of internet communication

00:10:31.940 and how, as journalism moved onto the internet, as emails were being used

00:10:38.740 to communicate with sources and so on, it was incredibly easy to identify sources

00:10:45.600 and that, therefore, any meaningful investigative journalism would be over.

00:10:49.860 And so, he took that.

00:10:52.260 He also, yes, saw the opportunity of being able to operate at scale.

00:10:59.480 And this is one of WikiLeaks' chief achievements,

00:11:03.440 which is to have basically become a library of reliable, truthful information records.

00:11:10.740 And in that sense, WikiLeaks kind of transcends traditional journalism,

00:11:18.060 which was seen as a threat to the legacy journalistic outlets like the New York Times and so on.

00:11:24.320 And I can go back to that editorial that you mentioned.

00:11:29.140 But he did things differently and to achieve a much greater impact.

00:11:39.780 And there's another aspect to this, which is as a computer programmer working on open source software and so on,

00:11:47.580 you're used to collaborating with others.

00:11:50.760 Because if you're just going to work on your software on your own, you're achieving a suboptimal result.

00:11:57.740 And so, he brought the idea of collaboration into the journalistic world, which was completely unheard of.

00:12:06.100 Something you now hear with the Panama Papers and so on,

00:12:09.600 a consortia of news organizations coming together to go through these vast material that had never been done before.

00:12:21.060 And WikiLeaks pioneered that.

00:12:23.420 And the first big collaboration came in 2010 with the Chelsea Manning Leaks,

00:12:27.620 which related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,

00:12:32.080 the U.S. State Department cables,

00:12:35.040 and the Guantanamo Bay files.

00:12:37.180 And Chelsea Manning also leaked the collateral murder video, 0.99

00:12:43.180 which is perhaps what WikiLeaks is most famous for.

00:12:47.460 But the fact that WikiLeaks operates,

00:12:51.220 receives, or has a capacity to receive big data sets anonymously from sources

00:12:57.640 doesn't mean that that's the only thing that WikiLeaks publishes.

00:13:00.400 And it doesn't mean that WikiLeaks publishes it wholesale.

00:13:03.400 In fact, as part of the extradition hearings,

00:13:09.260 there's been a lot of expert, well, no, witness testimony,

00:13:14.880 people who were working with Julian at the time of these 2010 publications,

00:13:19.820 who witnessed how Julian took steps and was the one who was taking the most responsibility

00:13:29.380 and doing the most to redact those documents and to put them out safely

00:13:34.340 and to look out for information that could possibly harm a person in a sense of physical harm

00:13:43.280 or arbitrary detention, that that shouldn't happen.

00:13:46.480 But, of course, he was working,

00:13:49.860 and WikiLeaks was working in collaboration with other news outlets,

00:13:54.200 and they had other considerations.

00:13:55.840 For example, The Guardian is concerned about being sued by oligarchs.

00:14:03.000 The New York Times had, you know, perhaps similar considerations,

00:14:09.780 but these are major players in the media with their own relationships with power players.

00:14:16.920 So WikiLeaks' impact and Julian's impact was undeniable at the time.

00:14:21.440 He came onto the stage as a, and he was treated sort of as a rock star.

00:14:28.320 And everyone knew who Julian Assange was,

00:14:31.160 but most people wouldn't know who the editor of the New York Times is.

00:14:37.180 But in their worldview, they're far more respectable and important

00:14:42.040 than this Australian newcomer who's changing the rules of the game.

00:14:47.580 So there were, anyway, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but...

00:14:53.460 No, no.

00:14:54.780 Well, you're outlining multiple, what would you say,

00:14:57.740 points of potential conflict of interest between the various players.

00:15:01.180 Let me push you on that a little bit, okay?

00:15:03.100 Because this is one of the things that popped into my mind.

00:15:07.040 I always try to take both sides of an argument, let's say,

00:15:10.700 when I'm trying to think it through,

00:15:11.860 and to try to make the strongest case I can for both sides.

00:15:15.080 And so I started, I would say I'm probably temperamentally sympathetic to your plight

00:15:19.880 and also to Julian's plight.

00:15:21.700 And so I also have to caution myself against that to some degree,

00:15:25.660 because I'm not a fan of great intrusive organizations,

00:15:29.880 whether they're state or corporate.

00:15:32.780 But they still, the devil still has to be given his due.

00:15:36.560 When operating at the scale of revelation that characterized WikiLeaks,

00:15:44.180 so let's say these 750,000 documents that were part and parcel of the collaboration with Manning,

00:15:50.780 how is it even possible to be judicious in their release?

00:15:55.000 Because you could imagine, and if you have any objections to this argument, please let me know.

00:15:59.800 One argument you could make is that secrecy in and of itself is dangerous.

00:16:05.540 And that it's the role of the media to uncover and expose secrecy,

00:16:11.120 especially if it hides potential malfeasance, as assiduously as possible. 0.95

00:16:16.080 And so the proper role of an investigative journalist is to damn the torpedoes

00:16:20.680 and steam full speed ahead and reveal what there is to be revealed.

00:16:26.720 And the counter-argument, I suppose, from the more secretive militaristic side

00:16:31.820 or the more limited state interest side is, well, that's all well and good,

00:16:36.920 but there are circumstances under which privacy and secrecy, at least temporarily,

00:16:44.540 is both strategically and ethically necessary.

00:16:47.800 And incautious behavior on the part of journalists is very difficult to discriminate

00:16:53.280 from valid threats to national security.

00:16:57.140 And then you might say that the legacy media, when they were in their heyday and reliable,

00:17:03.140 which is not so obviously the case now,

00:17:05.880 was composed of journalists who were able to straddle that judicious line,

00:17:12.040 revealing inappropriately secret acts of malfeasance when that was necessary,

00:17:17.580 but not doing so in such a way that compromised their ongoing relationships,

00:17:22.200 let's say, with the people whose behavior they had to attend to and cover,

00:17:28.360 and also not erring into the untested waters of destabilizing state security.

00:17:35.120 Then you ask yourself, well, maybe that's true and maybe it isn't,

00:17:38.500 and you can make an argument in various directions there,

00:17:41.200 but if you release the volume of documents that WikiLeaks releases,

00:17:45.960 is it even possible to take the due care that might be expected from or even demanded of legally

00:17:54.740 by experienced journalists who are operating at a more minor scale?

00:18:01.320 Going online without ExpressVPN is like not paying attention to the safety demonstration on a flight.

00:18:06.780 Most of the time, you'll probably be fine,

00:18:08.940 but what if one day that weird yellow mask drops down from overhead and you have no idea what to do?

00:18:14.340 In our hyper-connected world, your digital privacy isn't just a luxury, it's a fundamental right.

00:18:19.760 Every time you connect to an unsecured network in a cafe, hotel, or airport,

00:18:24.000 you're essentially broadcasting your personal information to anyone with a technical know-how to intercept it.

00:18:29.060 And let's be clear, it doesn't take a genius hacker to do this.

00:18:32.280 With some off-the-shelf hardware, even a tech-savvy teenager could potentially access your passwords,

00:18:37.400 bank logins, and credit card details.

00:18:39.660 Now, you might think, what's the big deal? Who'd want my data anyway?

00:18:43.020 Well, on the dark web, your personal information could fetch up to $1,000.

00:18:47.940 That's right, there's a whole underground economy built on stolen identities.

00:18:52.000 Enter ExpressVPN.

00:18:53.760 It's like a digital fortress, creating an encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet.

00:18:58.440 Their encryption is so robust that it would take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to crack it.

00:19:04.060 But don't let its power fool you.

00:19:05.760 ExpressVPN is incredibly user-friendly.

00:19:07.880 With just one click, you're protected across all your devices.

00:19:11.260 Phones, laptops, tablets, you name it.

00:19:13.460 That's why I use ExpressVPN whenever I'm traveling or working from a coffee shop.

00:19:17.580 It gives me peace of mind knowing that my research, communications, and personal data are shielded from prying eyes.

00:19:23.560 Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com slash jordan.

00:19:27.900 That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash jordan, and you can get an extra three months free.

00:19:34.760 ExpressVPN dot com slash jordan.

00:19:36.580 Well, I think you need to break it down.

00:19:42.740 What were these 750,000 documents that were published?

00:19:47.500 So you had 90,000, I think, from the Afghan war diaries.

00:19:51.220 And of those, 15,000 were withheld by WikiLeaks precisely because it was considered that they needed further review.

00:20:00.640 The Iraq war logs, there was a different approach, which was to have an automated, what's it called, redaction.

00:20:11.320 And in fact, there was, I think, an article in Wired, there was criticism over the redactions of the Iraq war logs because they said it was being over-redacted.

00:20:21.380 So one example was there had been a document that had been obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from the Pentagon, and that was already out there.

00:20:33.360 And that this document that had been released to a journalist was redacted, but it was less redacted than the version that WikiLeaks published.

00:20:43.620 Then you have the Guantanamo Bay files.

00:20:47.780 In that case, it was the files of each of the detainees who were in Guantanamo Bay.

00:20:58.840 Until then, no one even knew who was there, why they were there, how many were there.

00:21:04.300 And there was witness testimony in the extradition hearing from a lawyer who represented one of these Guantanamo Bay detainees,

00:21:14.240 who said that it was through those files that they were able to understand who had incriminated them.

00:21:23.920 The person who had incriminated their client was someone who had confessed under torture,

00:21:28.500 and it was through that that they were able to then win their case.

00:21:33.900 So in relation to the Guantanamo Bay files, the Telegraph, for example, published the exact same data set.

00:21:43.700 In relation to the diplomatic cables, it's actually very interesting because WikiLeaks, it's 250,000 cables.

00:21:53.240 WikiLeaks initially had a consortium of five big publishers.

00:21:57.900 There was the Guardian, the New York Times, El País in Spain, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde in France.

00:22:05.560 And these five big publishers did the initial stories with WikiLeaks, but then they quickly just lost interest.

00:22:14.160 And then WikiLeaks then entered into agreements with about 100 different media organizations around the world

00:22:22.040 because these publications concerned every single country in the world.

00:22:26.520 And through sharing these documents with newspapers, in local newspapers, they were able to report

00:22:37.300 because, you know, the New York Times might not be that interested in Burkina Faso.

00:22:42.900 But for the people in Burkina Faso, those State Department cables were, you know, part of their history,

00:22:50.100 but also of enormous potential impact.

00:22:54.060 And that's what journalism does.

00:22:58.220 And as part of the agreement with WikiLeaks, when a media organization entered into an agreement with WikiLeaks,

00:23:05.720 there was a written agreement in which they would review the cables.

00:23:10.860 And so cables would be published as stories were published, and they would also review that there was no one named

00:23:16.300 who would be at risk of arbitrary detention or death.

00:23:19.140 And so that was their obligation, and they fed those redactions to WikiLeaks, who then published the cable with the redaction.

00:23:27.940 What happened with the diplomatic cables?

00:23:30.120 Well, the Guardian, in its spite towards Julian, which we can go into, wrote a tell-all book in February 2011.

00:23:39.060 And in that book, against its written agreement with Julian, they published the entire CableGate encrypted file password

00:23:51.140 that had been entrusted to them.

00:23:54.340 And this is just, from a computer security perspective, this is absolute madness.

00:23:59.460 It is just almost a joke.

00:24:02.600 And they published it as a subheading in a chapter.

00:24:09.200 Do you think they knew what they were doing?

00:24:10.920 I mean, they claimed that they thought it was a temporary code, from what I've read.

00:24:15.360 And do you think they understood what they were doing?

00:24:17.480 They understood that they were trying to undermine Julian in every possible way, including by disclosing, you know,

00:24:29.460 whatever security measures that they were privy to. 1.00

00:24:36.620 But I think it was sheer stupidity. 1.00

00:24:41.200 And, of course, they then tried to justify themselves. 1.00

00:24:45.860 And they said, oh, he told us it was a temporary password.

00:24:50.880 But that's not even what the book says.

00:24:53.340 In the book, you know, it says, and Assange told us this is the long password.

00:24:58.560 And the long password is something like a record of diplomatic history from 1966 to the present day.

00:25:08.580 But the word diplomatic was a word that they were not to write down.

00:25:13.340 They should never write down.

00:25:14.840 And so in the book, they even put the word that you should never write down in there.

00:25:20.040 So I think it was carelessness.

00:25:23.920 It was also a race to getting their narrative out.

00:25:28.020 Because by then, WikiLeaks, Julian and the journalists at The Guardian that had been working on these diplomatic cables.

00:25:39.620 I mean, by then, The Guardian had all the Manning leaks.

00:25:44.860 So they had basically used Julian and they didn't need him anymore.

00:25:49.080 And then they turned on him.

00:25:50.680 So one of the things that's popped into my mind continually while I was reading through the unbelievable trials and catastrophes that your husband and you have been through is something like, and I'm not claiming this is the case at all.

00:26:08.700 I'm just saying what popped into my mind.

00:26:10.900 And certainly this is an accusation that's been leveled at me, is that someone in that much trouble must have done something wrong.

00:26:19.900 And I would say, well, probably that's true to some degree because everybody has done something wrong.

00:26:26.220 It's a very dangerous assumption because given that each of us has probably done something wrong, that means that we can be called out on it arbitrarily and with force when that's in the interest of people whose interests we've opposed.

00:26:39.560 And then also the fact that that's the case, that that sort of doubt can be elicited, means that people who are inclined to take you out for whatever reason have an easy pathway to doing it.

00:26:52.580 And maybe that would bring us to what happened in Sweden.

00:26:54.980 So it wasn't very, and I have some personal questions to ask you on that front.

00:26:59.320 And you're obviously welcome to not answer any questions that I might pose to you.

00:27:04.420 And I hope I don't do it rudely and inappropriately.

00:27:06.580 But it wasn't long after this vast trove of documents was published, and you're now making a case that they were actually published with a fair bit of care, and maybe even to a lesser degree than they might have validly been published.

00:27:22.660 It wasn't long after that before the authorities in Sweden brought charges against your husband in relationship to sexual misconduct.

00:27:30.720 Like that was in 2010.

00:27:32.380 It's very interesting to me that it was Sweden.

00:27:35.760 Your husband, Julian, described Sweden as the Saudi Arabia of feminism, which I thought was a pretty nice phrase, by the way. 1.00

00:27:42.400 And there's definitely something to be said about that.

00:27:45.700 And that was also at the height or in the prodroma to the believe all women and me too, what would you call it, brouhaha, and the insistence that if any charges of sexual misbehavior were ever brought against someone, that it was incumbent on everyone to assume that the victim was telling the truth.

00:28:11.780 And of course, that violates the presumption of innocence.

00:28:14.260 It often violates your right to face your accuser, and it's preposterous on the face of it, because what that does is enable anyone who's manipulative or devious or psychopathic to use the entire weight of the legal system as a weapon, which is happening so often now that it's almost beyond comprehension.

00:28:32.240 And it seems a bit too convenient in some real sense that these charges emerged just at the time that was most appropriate in some real pragmatic sense for the authorities in the UK and the US.

00:28:45.840 But I'd ask you also more personally, I mean, you married this man.

00:28:49.080 You had an affair with him for a long time.

00:28:51.340 You have two children together.

00:28:52.600 For some reason, either you didn't believe the charges and the allegations, or you saw something in Julian that superseded them of value.

00:29:10.420 And so, and this is a deeper question too.

00:29:13.520 I mean, you've got tangled in this pretty deeply, and you could have had a much simpler life.

00:29:17.640 And so, why are you on his side?

00:29:21.580 Why isn't it reasonable just to assume that Julian Assange is a narcissistic troublemaker with a proclivity for sexual impropriety?

00:29:30.800 And why do you believe that so deeply that, well, in some real sense, you were willing to stake your whole life on it?

00:29:36.460 And why aren't you just being played?

00:29:38.460 And I'm not saying that you are, but obviously those are the questions that, that all the people who are launching allegations against your husband and you, those are the claims that they're putting forward, essentially.

00:29:50.660 Well, Julian is the man I know.

00:29:54.860 The man I married, I know, wouldn't do those things.

00:29:59.140 And in fact, the way he's described is the exact opposite of who he is.

00:30:04.760 And that's not how I came into this, though.

00:30:08.700 I came into it in a professional capacity, precisely in the context of these Swedish allegations.

00:30:16.500 And you made a mistake, which is completely understandable, because you read everywhere that Julian was charged.

00:30:26.120 But in fact, he was never charged.

00:30:28.120 There was only ever a...

00:30:29.660 Oh, oh, okay.

00:30:30.860 I'm sorry.

00:30:31.360 Yeah, it was only ever a so-called preliminary investigation.

00:30:35.940 And it was dropped on four separate occasions.

00:30:40.120 The...

00:30:40.680 So why was there an extradition order if it was only a preliminary investigation?

00:30:44.620 Right.

00:30:45.260 Or is that exactly the issue?

00:30:47.160 No.

00:30:47.780 Look, that is a very good question.

00:30:50.680 And in fact, Julian's case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

00:30:54.340 He lost, and the UK Supreme Court said he should be extradited to Sweden.

00:30:58.660 And then they said, and we have to change the law so this doesn't happen again, because you need a charge before we extradite.

00:31:04.560 But it won't be retrospective.

00:31:06.460 Oh, I see.

00:31:06.960 So they legislated, but carved out a little exception for Julian so he wouldn't benefit from it.

00:31:13.020 And that has been the norm again and again and again, that somehow Julian is treated as the exception, and then we're going to fix it afterwards.

00:31:21.280 What were the allegations exactly?

00:31:24.580 What were the Swedish allegations?

00:31:26.660 And how many people brought them forward?

00:31:29.000 And why weren't they pursued?

00:31:31.000 So according...

00:31:32.500 There were two women, and according to their own account, they went to police because...

00:31:38.220 To the police because they had found out that both of them had slept with Julian over the...

00:31:44.860 Within a week, and they wanted Julian to have an HIV test.

00:31:49.560 That is their reason, according to their own account, for going to the police.

00:31:54.720 And you can go to the police in Sweden for that reason?

00:31:57.900 Well, who knows?

00:32:00.420 But just to put this in context...

00:32:02.320 Yeah, okay.

00:32:02.860 Okay, so Julian had just published the Afghan war logs in July, 25th of July, I think it was, or so.

00:32:13.340 The Swedish preliminary investigation was opened on the 20th of August.

00:32:18.060 But in between that, even before he went to Sweden, there was an article in the Daily Beast,

00:32:22.920 which said that the U.S. State Department was telling its allies to find a way to stop Julian in his tracks

00:32:30.700 and to find a way to prosecute him.

00:32:32.720 And they knew that Julian still had to publish the Afghan war logs and the diplomatic cables.

00:32:39.900 Sorry, the Iraq war logs.

00:32:41.660 The Iraq war logs were published in October, and the diplomatic cables on the 29th of November.

00:32:50.060 Sweden issued its Interpol arrest warrant on the 30th of November, one day later.

00:32:56.760 Julian voluntarily went to the police station and lost his liberty on the 7th of December, 2010.

00:33:07.680 He was put in prison for 10 days, then he was under house arrest for a year and a half.

00:33:11.640 He was in the embassy for seven years, then he was arrested, and he's been in Belmarsh High Security Prison ever since.

00:33:17.020 So, well, so the women wanted him to undergo an HIV test, but that's still not allegation of misbehavior.

00:33:28.080 What, well, although who knows in Sweden, what were the specific allegations?

00:33:33.480 And you said the allegations were dropped before formal charges were brought on four separate occasions.

00:33:39.440 So what were the allegations?

00:33:40.720 So there are four allegations, three in relation to one woman and one in relation to the other.

00:33:46.900 The single allegation which was most serious is what they called lesser rape.

00:33:54.920 So there are three degrees of rape in Sweden, and this was the lesser degree in the sense that there was no physical coercion.

00:34:04.060 And the allegation is that Julian initiated sex when the woman was asleep.

00:34:14.820 The Swedish police had text messages from the women, which they refused to hand over to the defense.

00:34:24.580 And those text messages exonerated Julian, and his lawyers, his defense lawyers, were able to read them at the police station, but were not allowed to take a copy.

00:34:37.640 And Julian would only be able to access those text messages once he was charged.

00:34:42.000 So you have this, he was placed, deliberately placed in this position of complete disadvantage in relation to his own defense, because at no point during those nine years where Sweden was opening and closing the preliminary investigation, was he formally an accused person.

00:35:02.220 Because once you're accused, you start getting all these, the rights of a defendant.

00:35:08.260 And it never reached that point, because there was no case.

00:35:12.640 So there was an initial prosecutor who okayed the suspicions.

00:35:20.200 Then three days later, the senior prosecutor of Stockholm reviewed the allegation, this most serious, the more serious allegation, which is so-called lesser rape.

00:35:33.540 Sorry, I forgot to mention the other ones were assault and sexual coercion in relation to the other woman. 1.00

00:35:38.440 But, and the prosecutor said, I have reviewed the interview with women, with the woman in relation to this so-called lesser rape.

00:35:51.740 There is nothing that is not credible about the account, but there is nothing in the account that is a criminal offense.

00:36:00.600 That was the most senior prosecutor in Sweden.

00:36:04.180 What happened then, there was a politician.

00:36:06.160 This was about 10 days out of a Swedish general election.

00:36:10.460 A politician for the Social Democrat Party, who had been active in the, who had held the role of gender ombudsman, who was also an attorney, then took on the two women as his clients, and contacted a separate prosecutor's office.

00:36:33.900 They kind of take test cases based in Gothenburg, and he pitched this case to the senior prosecutor there, and then she took it up.

00:36:41.940 Her name was Marianne Nee.

00:36:43.400 And throughout that period that Marianne Nee was heading up the case, she refused to question Julian.

00:36:50.780 Now imagine this, a sexual assault, a sexual assault, lesser rape and so on case, where the chief investigator, who was a prosecutor, refuses to question Julian.

00:37:06.000 And since, we've learned a lot of things since, we've learned the content of those text messages, where the woman with the more serious charge, sorry, not charge, even I say it.

00:37:20.240 You see, it's so, it's insane.

00:37:22.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah, right, right, it's so pernicious, eh?

00:37:24.940 Yeah.

00:37:26.540 She says, I don't want to accuse Julian of anything.

00:37:30.480 The police are trying to grab him, and I'm being railroaded.

00:37:36.760 This was in her contemporaneous text messages.

00:37:39.740 Oh, wow, wow, wow, wow.

00:37:40.220 Well, how was it, how was it that both of these charges were brought about simultaneously?

00:37:46.160 Because that also seems, well, yes, it's like, what's going on here?

00:37:49.660 Because I presume these women didn't know each other. 0.99

00:37:51.760 I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but, and so you think, well, what, it seems a bit too fortuitous that both of these events happened at the same time, and then so soon after, the other string of events that you described.

00:38:04.880 So, obviously, you know, there's a bit of smoke there, and, of course, we're also debating whether or not there's fire where there's smoke, so that's a difficult problem.

00:38:12.760 But what's your understanding of how it is that both of these charges emerged simultaneously?

00:38:17.180 Not charges.

00:38:19.740 Allegations.

00:38:20.180 Oh, sorry.

00:38:20.700 Yeah, yeah.

00:38:20.960 Geez.

00:38:21.800 Allegations, yeah.

00:38:24.160 You know, they didn't know each other.

00:38:27.980 They met on one occasion.

00:38:29.580 They knew that the second woman contacted the first one, and then they spoke to each other, and they found out they had both slept with Julian,

00:38:41.020 and then they both went, that's their story, that they went to the police because they wanted an HIV test because he had slept with them in this short period.

00:38:50.780 I don't, I don't, I don't see any point in me speculating about that.

00:38:59.360 You know, what I can speak to is the extraordinary behavior by the Swedish authorities in conjunction with the British authorities.

00:39:11.860 So, since...

00:39:13.320 Well, could you speculate about the motivation of the second Swedish agent, so to speak, who took on the two women as clients and who had a political stake in the issue?

00:39:23.600 What exactly was she up to and why, and why didn't she want to question Julian?

00:39:27.780 It was a man.

00:39:28.560 It was a man.

00:39:29.300 His name was Klaus Borstum.

00:39:30.880 Oh, sorry.

00:39:32.000 And it was a close call in that general election in Sweden, and he was tipped to be the new justice minister if they won the case.

00:39:40.980 I mean, if they won the election, sorry.

00:39:42.400 And incidentally, one of the two women was also running for politics, so in that same election for a local seat.

00:39:52.200 And she actually, there are text messages as well between the women where they're talking about that they can get money if they tell their story and stuff. 0.99

00:40:03.500 So, it's a little bit, yeah.

00:40:05.640 I see.

00:40:06.220 So, there's lots of moral hazard involved in many different directions.

00:40:09.900 So, let me summarize the story so far, and you tell me if I've got it essentially correct.

00:40:15.880 So, WikiLeaks is founded.

00:40:18.380 There's a treasure trove of documents published, let's say, exposing the secrets of many powerful agencies and people who might have wanted those secrets to be kept silent.

00:40:29.940 Coincidentally, at the same time as the publication occurs, on a scale that's heretofore impossible technically, there are allegations brought about against your husband in Sweden, which is the capital, let's say, of the ideology that makes such allegations possible.

00:40:48.180 At a time that's extremely fortuitous for the people whose interests are threatened by the leaks and whose interests are also furthered personally and politically by the fact of the allegations in Sweden itself.

00:41:03.120 And then, despite the fact that no charges are brought against your husband, the UK justice system decides that he should be validly extradited, even though they recognize simultaneously that the fact that that is a legal necessity is a violation of a more fundamental legal principle, which they decide not to enforce in the singular case of your husband.

00:41:24.960 And then, as a consequence, he says, and then, as a consequence, he jumps bail and heads for the Ecuadorian embassy.

00:41:32.140 And then, do you think that decision was justifiable to jump bail, let's say, and why did he do it?

00:41:38.040 And then, why, of all places, the Ecuadorian embassy?

00:41:44.200 Well, why the Ecuadorian embassy?

00:41:45.820 It was because Ecuador, at the time, had taken a very sort of independent, sovereign position vis-a-vis the United States.

00:41:58.740 So, the United States had had its biggest naval base, I think, in Ecuador, in the world, well, at least in Latin America, in Ecuador.

00:42:09.240 And they had kicked out the U.S. base and also had a very kind of proud position.

00:42:18.540 They said, well, you can have your base here if we can have our base in Miami.

00:42:23.040 So, they were changing the rules of the geopolitical game.

00:42:26.700 And so, this ballsy attitude of the president at the time, Rafael Correa, suggested that they would be willing to protect Julian.

00:42:41.860 And Julian went into the embassy on the 19th of June, 2012.

00:42:47.040 And he had exhausted all his domestic remedies in the United Kingdom.

00:42:54.140 The United Kingdom was giving just a few days before he would be taken off to Sweden.

00:43:02.540 In Sweden, you have an extraordinary pretrial detention regime.

00:43:08.880 So, he would be in prison from the moment he arrived in Sweden, even though he wasn't charged.

00:43:16.320 And interestingly, because Sweden is a very interesting country, and they kind of play the stats.

00:43:22.700 So, I think, I don't know if it's still true now, but for example, they have very low, or at least they did a few years ago,

00:43:31.140 one of the shortest sentence times for convicted prisoners.

00:43:37.740 And that was partly explained because they also had the longest pretrial detention time.

00:43:46.880 So, that by the time they were convicted, they had already served, you know, their potential sentence.

00:43:54.840 So, Julian would be going into a Swedish prison in a country where he didn't speak the language.

00:44:00.540 But most importantly, Sweden had renditioned two asylum seekers.

00:44:09.820 This is one of the most egregious cases of extraordinary rendition in which two asylum seekers were taken on a CIA flight in Sweden,

00:44:23.680 were handed over by Swedish authorities to the CIA, where they were flown to Egypt, which was their country of origin, and they were tortured.

00:44:33.020 And then eventually, they were able to take their cases to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, and they won.

00:44:40.180 And also, the torture committee found in their favor and said that Sweden had violated its obligations not to hand over a person to the country where they risked being tortured or killed.

00:44:56.900 And on top of that, of all the extradition cases that had gone before, from the year 2000, Sweden had extradited every single person that the U.S. had asked for.

00:45:13.580 So, Sweden was in, you know, Sweden has this self-image, and it also has amazing marketing in the world.

00:45:22.060 It has, you know, this image of fairness and so on, and you spoke to Swedes, and they'd say, oh, well, if he came here, of course, we would, you know, it would be unthinkable.

00:45:33.980 But what I've come to learn with Julian is that the unthinkable becomes reality when it comes to him.

00:45:42.160 He is, he is...

00:45:43.500 It seems to happen all the time.

00:45:44.700 Yeah, well, they create this, he is an exception to the rule, but what's actually happening is that they're creating a new rule with his exception.

00:45:52.060 That will then, that is then normalized.

00:45:55.400 So, if you look at the persecution that has occurred against Julian over time, now you see a lot of no platforming by PayPal, for example, of people with platforms that are critical of, for example, the war on Ukraine or whatever.

00:46:13.420 PayPal and Bank of America and Visa and MasterCard, for the very first time in 2010, created a banking blockade against WikiLeaks.

00:46:25.840 They blocked WikiLeaks from receiving donations from people who wanted to donate because WikiLeaks was, you know, on a global scale, this great new phenomenon.

00:46:38.460 And WikiLeaks has always just...

00:46:40.800 That's an appallingly, that's an appallingly fascist precedent.

00:46:45.360 And it started, yeah.

00:46:46.720 And it started, reflected recently in Canada with the government's decision there to seize the bank accounts on the entire financial operations of anyone who they deemed inappropriate in relationship to their donations to the trucker convoy.

00:47:01.200 Which was very much a tempest in a teapot.

00:47:04.400 Yes, it was the most utterly appalling thing that our absolutely, utterly appalling prime minister has ever done.

00:47:10.880 And that's really saying something because he's a real piece of work.

00:47:14.040 And so, yeah, this collusion of corporate enterprise and government in relationship to personal finance and the funding of, let's say, political or journalistic causes is an unbelievably dire threat.

00:47:29.560 And so, okay, so Julian presumed that if he went to Sweden to face these allegations, which were of insufficient magnitude and credibility to result in formal charges, that the consequence of that would be his immediate imprisonment for an indeterminate amount of time and the overwhelming probability of being extradited to the U.S.

00:47:54.480 Now, we might say, you made a case for why that was a credible concern and also for a case why Ecuador was willing to protect him.

00:48:04.040 Why were the Americans after him?

00:48:06.060 And to what degree?

00:48:08.640 Again, we have the mystery here, right?

00:48:10.400 Which is, well, Assange is operating on a scale that's novel.

00:48:15.920 And you said yourself that's a consequence of the novel interpenetration of his radically advanced computer programming skills.

00:48:23.160 And the international horizon of journalism that that instantly opens up that he pioneered.

00:48:29.800 And the danger for him, of course, is that, well, when you're uncovering everyone's secrets, you can make an awful lot of enemies.

00:48:37.940 And the probability that at least one set of those enemies is going to successfully take you out, especially given that they're operating with immense resources, is extremely high.

00:48:48.560 And he is also a test case and an exception, and almost necessarily so, because what he's doing has never been done before.

00:48:55.940 And so it's not surprising it produces legal conundrums.

00:48:58.860 All right, so the Swedes go after him on specious grounds, attempting to denigrate his reputation.

00:49:04.300 There's moral hazard involved on behalf of the accusers, both politically and personally.

00:49:09.300 And at the same time, there's a pronounced threat lurking in the U.S.

00:49:13.880 Now, the Americans were ambivalent about this, as I read in the bio, because the Obama administration had thought about prosecuting or at least charging Julian, but had decided against it because they thought it would violate, it would pose a threat to the integrity of the press and violate the Constitution, which seems like a relevant issue here.

00:49:34.100 But the charges were eventually brought forth nonetheless.

00:49:38.480 And it also seems, interestingly enough, that it didn't really matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans were in charge.

00:49:45.260 The Americans at the highest level of state authority were highly inclined to make life very difficult for your husband, practically and legally, and to prosecute him in some sense to the fullest extent of the law.

00:49:57.720 And so, there was a first charge that had to do with password cracking or sharing, if I have got that right.

00:50:07.080 But then there were 17 more charges developed.

00:50:10.720 And so, you have another situation there where a reasonable and uninformed outside observer might say,

00:50:17.020 Well, good God, you know, the UK is after him, the Swedes are after him, the Americans are after him, and not just on one charge, on 18 charges.

00:50:26.280 And these charges carry with them, I think, a maximum sentence of 170 years.

00:50:31.620 And so, there just has to be something here lurking under the surface that's just not kosher.

00:50:37.080 And so, tell me what the Americans are claiming, and also why, even in the face of those claims, which are repetitive and constant and being pursued for a very long time,

00:50:49.940 why you're on board with his defense, both ethically, practically, and personally.

00:50:57.760 So, what are the charges? What are the Americans alleging?

00:51:00.000 Okay, so, yes, the Obama administration decided not to charge Julian, but they only decided that, in 2013, Julian had already been in the embassy for a year.

00:51:14.280 And, as part of the, when they announced that they weren't going to charge him over the Manning leaks,

00:51:20.260 they did it through a spokesperson called Matthew Miller.

00:51:23.120 And he said, as you said, that they weren't willing to charge him because there was no way to differentiate what Julian and WikiLeaks had done,

00:51:33.940 even with the same publications, and what The Guardian, The Telegraph, The New York Times, and so on, had also done.

00:51:45.220 And then, Matthew Miller also said, Julian Assange is not a hacker, he's a publisher.

00:51:50.040 So, they had, by then, all the evidence, because Chelsea Manning had just been through her court-martial,

00:51:58.640 and all the evidence had been presented at the court-martial, and so they, you know, they had the full information, they took a position.

00:52:07.800 And at the end of his presidency, Obama also commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence.

00:52:13.280 So, that was the political position of the Obama administration.

00:52:16.560 What happened?

00:52:18.220 Well, the charges, the charge, the single charge that was initially brought was brought in 2018.

00:52:26.640 And that was brought in the context of what we've since learned was a complete obsession by the CIA into Julian and WikiLeaks.

00:52:40.760 So, as soon as Trump entered in office, WikiLeaks, after a month or two, published what it called Vault 7,

00:52:50.620 which was about, it was handbooks about the CIA's hacking unit,

00:53:03.980 which disclosed things like their capabilities of, you know, using exploits.

00:53:15.040 So, using Android phones or iPhones and using the vulnerabilities in those phones and computers

00:53:27.220 in order to access them and take over the computer.

00:53:32.860 And the U.S. government, a few years before, had committed to, if it found a vulnerability,

00:53:39.780 to let the companies know so that they could be fixed, because there are security risks,

00:53:45.520 which anyone can really take, exploit.

00:53:49.960 And it also revealed, for example, that the CIA had the capacity to also control cars.

00:54:00.920 Imagine how undetectable assassinations can take place in that context.

00:54:07.760 So, the CIA was livid.

00:54:09.140 And last year, there was an investigative piece published by three investigative journalists,

00:54:19.060 national security journalists, based in D.C.

00:54:22.600 And they had over 30 sources within the national security establishment in the U.S.

00:54:28.200 And they were people in the CIA and also named sources.

00:54:36.520 So, imagine, 30.

00:54:39.280 And they spoke to these investigative journalists about what had happened during the Trump era.

00:54:47.040 And they disclosed that there were plans not just to kidnap and rendition Julian,

00:54:55.240 but also to assassinate him.

00:54:57.360 And one of the conundrums that the Justice Department faced, or that the administration faced,

00:55:04.840 was that there were no charges against Julian.

00:55:07.160 And so, what do they do?

00:55:08.320 If they kidnap him...

00:55:09.380 Yeah, you might call that a conundrum.

00:55:11.520 Right.

00:55:13.200 They kidnap him.

00:55:14.480 They take him to a black site.

00:55:15.780 Oh, hold on.

00:55:16.400 Well, there are no charges against him.

00:55:17.700 Well, we'd better conjure up some charges.

00:55:20.500 So, they then brought a charge in, I think it's March 2018, which was the single computer charge.

00:55:28.460 Now, this single computer charge is not even a...

00:55:35.880 What they allege is that there was an online chat between Chelsea Manning and someone who they say is Julian,

00:55:43.300 Julian, but they can't prove, in which Chelsea Manning says,

00:55:50.220 I have a hash, which is not a password, a hash.

00:55:54.560 I have half a hash.

00:55:58.200 Can you help me?

00:56:02.640 Anyway, it's not about...

00:56:05.120 It's not a password.

00:56:06.840 I'm not a technical person.

00:56:08.160 But basically, the purpose, according to the US, the purpose of eventually cracking the password,

00:56:17.000 there was no attempt to crack the password, and it was Chelsea Manning asking for help, 0.95

00:56:22.780 which didn't result in an attempt.

00:56:28.300 The purpose was so that Chelsea Manning could log in with a different login in order to hide her identity. 0.99

00:56:35.860 It wasn't to access...

00:56:37.320 This is the US's case. 0.52

00:56:38.940 It wasn't to access information, because she already had access to all that information.

00:56:43.380 In fact, she had access to top-secret information, which she didn't leak.

00:56:47.760 But they're saying that Julian, or someone they say is Julian,

00:56:52.540 agreed to try to help her hide her identity, which is what journalists do all the time.

00:56:59.520 Advise sources about how to stay safe from detection.

00:57:03.600 That is their big computer crime charge.

00:57:09.040 Now, just to put things in context, it's five years...

00:57:10.660 Okay, so that was the first charge.

00:57:12.200 Yep, sorry, go ahead.

00:57:13.160 That is a five-year charge.

00:57:14.660 Julian faces 175 years.

00:57:17.140 And they use that charge as a PR exercise in order to say,

00:57:21.240 oh, look, he's different from journalists, because there is this computer charge.

00:57:25.960 And it's, you know, the New York Times almost gleefully saying,

00:57:31.760 well, you know, he's been charged, but not for something that would affect us.

00:57:36.200 That was before they introduced the 17 charges under the Espionage Act.

00:57:39.840 But they fundamentally misunderstood the computer charge.

00:57:43.580 But I think they didn't even care, because it was just a way of putting a wedge between themselves and WikiLeaks.

00:57:49.340 But after those 17 charges were introduced under the Espionage Act, this was about a month after Julian was arrested,

00:57:58.180 the New York Times put out another editorial in which they said that the case against Julian Assange strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.

00:58:06.960 The Washington Post has also put one out.

00:58:09.720 And in fact, all the, you know, the press freedom groups, the human rights groups, they're all on this, sorry,

00:58:14.380 they're all on the same side in relation to that the case should be dropped and it's a complete outrage.

00:58:23.280 Starting a business can be tough, but thanks to Shopify, running your online storefront is easier than ever.

00:58:29.280 Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business.

00:58:33.520 From the launch your online shop stage, all the way to the did we just hit a million orders stage,

00:58:38.500 Shopify is here to help you grow.

00:58:40.120 Our marketing team uses Shopify every day to sell our merchandise and we love how easy it is to add more items,

00:58:46.320 ship products and track conversions.

00:58:48.600 With Shopify, customize your online store to your style with flexible templates and powerful tools,

00:58:53.920 alongside an endless list of integrations and third-party apps like on-demand printing, accounting and chatbots.

00:59:00.120 Shopify helps you turn browsers into buyers with the internet's best converting checkout,

00:59:04.440 up to 36% better compared to other leading e-commerce platforms.

00:59:07.900 No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control

00:59:12.340 and take your business to the next level.

00:59:14.920 Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash jbp, all lowercase.

00:59:20.860 Go to shopify.com slash jbp now to grow your business no matter what stage you're in.

00:59:26.180 That's shopify.com slash jbp.

00:59:28.560 Right, well it looks to me, well it looks to me like there's a fair bit of pragmatic strategic thinking going on here,

00:59:40.460 which is, well, you could make a case that Assange's activities,

00:59:45.720 partly because they're so novel and so international,

00:59:48.320 and on such a large scale raise a variety of security concerns and legal issues.

00:59:55.880 And that's troublesome to many powerful players.

00:59:59.760 And why wouldn't they attempt to tangle him up as much as possible in as many legal webs as possible,

01:00:07.820 in some sense, regardless of whether or not that would ever result in conviction,

01:00:12.660 because he could easily be dragged, as he has been,

01:00:16.820 through an incredibly brutal self-defense process

01:00:20.420 that in all likelihood would take at minimum a decade,

01:00:24.160 and at maximum longer than that.

01:00:26.620 And so you can imagine strategically that there's almost no risk at all

01:00:30.320 to the people who are bringing forward these charges,

01:00:32.280 because they can parcel out the duties of keeping your husband in a spider's web 1.00

01:00:37.640 for the rest of his life without any risk to themselves whatsoever.

01:00:43.680 And so it seems to me almost inevitable that this would occur

01:00:47.320 as a consequence, again, of the scale at which he was operating

01:00:51.840 and the novelty of the environment that he had produced.

01:00:55.280 And I'm not trying to justify it in the least,

01:00:57.240 but I'm trying, again, to put myself in the position of those who are bringing about the allegations.

01:01:02.560 What's the cost to them?

01:01:04.620 Well, some government money is going to be spent,

01:01:06.660 some people are going to be specializing in his prosecution.

01:01:09.940 That's not much of a cost.

01:01:11.340 The cost to you and Julian is your whole life in some real sense,

01:01:15.080 but they bear virtually none of the weight of this

01:01:19.560 and have managed, or have they?

01:01:21.800 Have they managed, in some sense, to successfully impede the operation of Wikipedia?

01:01:27.400 Or have they, in fact, as a consequence of this,

01:01:30.100 Wikipedia's prosecution brought even more attention to Wikipedia's operations

01:01:36.560 and made it more, sorry, sorry, WikiLeaks operation

01:01:39.240 and made it even more successful and widely known than it would have otherwise been?

01:01:43.100 So I'm curious, do you think that their actions are counterproductive

01:01:45.880 even in relationship to their own goals?

01:01:48.080 I think their actions are counterproductive,

01:01:51.200 but in the sense that I don't, it isn't cost-free to them to do what they're doing.

01:01:56.540 They have to corrupt their own norm system in a very public way.

01:02:02.880 Yeah, but that's a long-term problem, man.

01:02:05.120 That's a long-term problem, you know.

01:02:06.800 And lots of organizations are facing that problem now.

01:02:10.300 I mean, I see that, again, in the actions of the Canadian government.

01:02:13.400 I mean, what they've done is absolutely reprehensible,

01:02:17.280 speaking in the medium and long-term,

01:02:19.560 but from a short-term instrumental perspective,

01:02:24.040 then, you know, hypothetically, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

01:02:29.800 So, and, you know, shallow actors act shallowly,

01:02:34.060 and so I agree that, well, let's make the case, for example,

01:02:39.940 that the New York Times is correct

01:02:41.480 and that these investigations constitute a real threat to the integrity of the press.

01:02:48.820 I mean, obviously, that's a catastrophe

01:02:50.320 because the press is one thing that keeps the potential overreach

01:02:54.320 and tyranny of the government and big business and their collusion at bay.

01:03:00.020 And if you interfere with that,

01:03:01.140 then you risk destabilizing the entire society.

01:03:04.880 So, obviously, that's a risk.

01:03:06.620 My point was more that the persons involved in this

01:03:10.300 do not bear anywhere near the same risk or cost

01:03:13.700 that you and Julian bear.

01:03:19.840 They're not in the same league.

01:03:21.680 I mean, they can do this professionally in some sense

01:03:23.780 while you're roasted over a slow fire professionally,

01:03:27.720 personally, financially, with regard to reputation.

01:03:30.760 And then there's also a fair bit of a genuine mortal risk in play.

01:03:39.080 You know, I've met probably now 150 people

01:03:41.960 who've been tarred and feathered by various bad actors

01:03:47.180 who bore very little consequence for their tarring and feathering.

01:03:52.700 And every single one of them,

01:03:55.140 including people who I would have regarded

01:03:57.000 as some of the most brave and emotionally stable people I've ever met,

01:04:01.420 and I've met a lot of people,

01:04:03.520 have reacted to that pilloring and social exclusion

01:04:08.160 and appalling mobbing

01:04:09.980 with about the same degree of severity

01:04:13.180 from the psychological perspective

01:04:14.980 that they might have experienced

01:04:16.640 had they been diagnosed or a close one

01:04:18.980 to them diagnosed with a fatal illness.

01:04:21.240 And one of the things that I did uncover more

01:04:25.000 as I was investigating your situation

01:04:27.140 and your husband's situation

01:04:28.280 is that your team has made the claim

01:04:31.780 that Mr. Assange's mental health

01:04:34.680 has been severely compromised.

01:04:36.380 And I find that highly probable.

01:04:39.420 Virtually everyone that I've talked to

01:04:41.260 who's been through a tiny fraction

01:04:43.640 of what you guys have been through

01:04:45.240 has some variant of post-traumatic stress disorder

01:04:49.360 as a consequence.

01:04:51.060 You know, and that might only be

01:04:52.280 only be a university professor

01:04:55.500 who's faced three or four allegations

01:04:58.060 of some kind of ideological impropriety

01:05:00.560 in the student press and a local newspaper

01:05:02.460 and maybe a peripheral article

01:05:04.200 on a state or national level.

01:05:06.540 And then the, what would you say,

01:05:08.900 the developing mistrust of his peers

01:05:10.660 that goes on for a couple of months

01:05:12.540 compared to what you guys have been through,

01:05:14.640 that's a tempest in a teapot,

01:05:16.180 but that's enough to really, really

01:05:18.860 bring harm to people.

01:05:20.380 And it's part of an indication

01:05:22.820 of just how serious this culture

01:05:24.900 of unwarranted accusation

01:05:27.160 and weaponization of the investigative process

01:05:29.900 really is.

01:05:30.840 And people who are listening might think,

01:05:32.860 well, who cares, you know?

01:05:34.500 This is Julian Assange.

01:05:36.060 What's the probability

01:05:36.980 that something like that will happen to me

01:05:39.500 or anyone I care about?

01:05:40.960 And I would say,

01:05:41.640 the way things are going,

01:05:45.240 the probability that that may happen to you

01:05:49.320 is increasing dramatically.

01:05:50.820 But even more particularly,

01:05:53.400 the fact that it's happening to many people

01:05:55.740 and extremely publicly

01:05:57.180 is already making you muzzle your willingness

01:06:00.840 to speak freely and act truly

01:06:03.140 in a manner that's so pernicious and pervasive

01:06:05.960 that you can hardly even imagine it.

01:06:07.740 And so for every one person

01:06:09.800 that's persecuted successfully

01:06:12.120 on the reputational front,

01:06:13.860 like your husband,

01:06:14.980 there's probably 10,000 people

01:06:16.620 who decide that it's probably

01:06:17.760 just better to shut up and take it.

01:06:19.940 And that really does pose a signal threat

01:06:22.260 to the integrity of the state

01:06:23.660 that's predicated on free association

01:06:26.020 and free expression.

01:06:27.540 So it's rather appalling,

01:06:29.340 to say the least.

01:06:30.940 And so let's go through the other,

01:06:35.300 if you can,

01:06:35.960 to some degree.

01:06:37.240 The other charges,

01:06:38.820 obviously they're of less significance

01:06:41.000 than the original charge,

01:06:42.440 I would think,

01:06:43.160 because otherwise the original charge

01:06:45.080 wouldn't have been the charge

01:06:46.240 that was originally laid.

01:06:47.380 But what other accusations have emerged

01:06:50.840 and why do legacy news media sources

01:06:54.880 like the New York Times

01:06:55.980 regard those charges

01:06:57.280 as also a threat to their operations?

01:06:59.540 Well, actually the first charge,

01:07:03.720 the computer conspiracy

01:07:06.480 to commit computer intrusion,

01:07:08.100 it's called,

01:07:08.920 that is the weakest,

01:07:12.340 you know,

01:07:12.740 it is basically a made-up charge.

01:07:17.160 And because technically what they were,

01:07:20.160 from a technical perspective,

01:07:21.660 what they said was supposed to be the goal

01:07:25.320 is a technical impossibility.

01:07:27.400 But that came out during the extradition hearings.

01:07:31.160 And what they did,

01:07:32.360 in relation to this first,

01:07:33.440 I'm still talking about the computer charge,

01:07:35.560 was they introduced a second superseding indictment

01:07:39.920 halfway through the extradition hearing.

01:07:41.720 So the U.S. has been moving the goalposts constantly.

01:07:46.000 And with this second superseding indictment,

01:07:51.640 they said that they had,

01:07:54.520 they basically relied on a new witness,

01:07:59.400 their key witness,

01:08:01.380 who was an Icelandic man,

01:08:03.500 who they made,

01:08:07.080 he had been flown to Virginia,

01:08:08.940 given his testimony to the grand jury.

01:08:14.260 And so they had produced this second superseding indictment.

01:08:20.000 And in there,

01:08:20.960 they didn't introduce more charges.

01:08:23.200 They just said,

01:08:23.860 look,

01:08:24.020 we have more circumstantial evidence that suggests that,

01:08:28.460 that says that Julian allegedly was instructing hackers.

01:08:37.200 Okay, so all this new stuff that they introduced

01:08:41.360 in the second superseding indictment,

01:08:44.140 relying on this testimony from this Icelandic man,

01:08:47.060 Sigurdur Thordeson.

01:08:48.900 About a year later,

01:08:52.040 in 2020,

01:08:53.660 sorry,

01:08:54.080 2021,

01:08:55.160 this very same witness

01:08:57.620 then spoke to Icelandic,

01:09:00.220 the Icelandic press,

01:09:01.300 and said,

01:09:01.660 no,

01:09:03.340 what's in that second superseding indictment

01:09:05.700 is not what I told the FBI.

01:09:07.920 And in fact,

01:09:08.540 it misrepresents what I said.

01:09:10.720 So basically,

01:09:11.720 the Department of Justice

01:09:14.140 has completely misled

01:09:15.920 the British courts.

01:09:18.520 And,

01:09:19.240 and the witness on which,

01:09:21.780 on whom they relied,

01:09:22.760 has retracted the,

01:09:25.040 well,

01:09:25.200 what they say is his testimony.

01:09:27.500 So that's been out there for,

01:09:29.220 you know,

01:09:29.440 anyway,

01:09:30.360 so that's,

01:09:30.860 but because it's such a weak charge,

01:09:32.460 they needed to try to beef it up.

01:09:33.920 And then they went to this man

01:09:35.100 who's also

01:09:35.760 a convicted

01:09:38.040 fraudster

01:09:39.620 and 1.00

01:09:40.160 and a convicted pedophile 0.98

01:09:43.340 and so on. 0.98

01:09:44.140 And,

01:09:44.680 and also

01:09:45.680 diagnosed

01:09:46.860 with

01:09:48.500 psychopathy

01:09:51.300 or what is the last,

01:09:52.840 yeah,

01:09:53.420 anyway.

01:09:54.220 Well,

01:09:54.520 what's,

01:09:55.020 that's not such a bad combination. 0.89

01:09:57.900 Fraudster, 1.00

01:09:58.520 pedophile, 1.00

01:09:58.940 psychopath, 1.00

01:09:59.780 why wouldn't you regard him

01:10:00.860 as a credible witness?

01:10:01.520 The thing,

01:10:01.920 the way things are.

01:10:02.660 Especially because he was convicted

01:10:04.080 of some of that.

01:10:05.000 Yes,

01:10:05.300 well,

01:10:05.660 he had defrauded WikiLeaks

01:10:07.140 and WikiLeaks had,

01:10:09.240 had taken him to court

01:10:10.680 and he had been imprisoned.

01:10:11.560 So it's not like he didn't have,

01:10:12.980 you know,

01:10:13.660 a motivation there either.

01:10:16.120 And they gave him

01:10:17.620 immunity from prosecution.

01:10:20.780 And,

01:10:21.040 anyway,

01:10:22.620 so that's the one charge.

01:10:23.760 Now,

01:10:23.900 the 17 charges

01:10:26.220 under the Espionage Act,

01:10:28.120 now there's quite a lot of interest

01:10:29.740 in the Espionage Act.

01:10:31.380 But,

01:10:32.160 Julian is,

01:10:34.940 he's not,

01:10:35.800 there's no allegation

01:10:36.660 he's a spy,

01:10:37.960 per se.

01:10:39.660 The,

01:10:40.280 the U.S.

01:10:40.960 says that

01:10:41.900 he

01:10:42.440 received

01:10:43.820 information

01:10:45.960 that concerns

01:10:47.200 national security

01:10:48.200 and he possessed

01:10:50.160 that information

01:10:51.120 and he made,

01:10:53.140 he communicated

01:10:54.440 that information

01:10:55.340 to the public.

01:10:56.740 Those are the 17 charges.

01:10:58.840 If you break it down,

01:11:00.520 it's 40,

01:11:01.720 four charges

01:11:02.580 equivalent to about

01:11:03.480 40 years

01:11:04.520 potential sentence

01:11:06.320 for the publication

01:11:07.200 of the collateral

01:11:08.620 murder video.

01:11:10.100 Five charges

01:11:11.000 in relation

01:11:11.620 to the State Department

01:11:12.900 cables,

01:11:13.560 which amount

01:11:14.080 to 50 years

01:11:15.040 and the Iraq

01:11:16.980 war logs

01:11:17.660 and so on

01:11:18.240 and the Afghan war logs

01:11:20.360 constitute the rest.

01:11:22.680 But this is what,

01:11:23.880 he's not being prosecuted.

01:11:25.320 So they're really throwing,

01:11:26.420 they're really throwing

01:11:27.160 the book at him

01:11:27.960 in some sense.

01:11:28.840 I mean,

01:11:29.000 they have so much,

01:11:30.680 they have access

01:11:31.280 to so many things

01:11:32.620 that he published

01:11:33.700 that I just can't imagine

01:11:36.060 a court case

01:11:37.220 that is addressing this

01:11:38.760 because

01:11:39.080 there's so much

01:11:40.400 for the prosecution

01:11:41.160 to draw on

01:11:42.160 given the volume

01:11:43.020 of the leaks

01:11:44.320 that they could bring

01:11:45.440 allegations of.

01:11:47.200 It's not the volume.

01:11:48.060 It's not the volume

01:11:49.100 they have an issue with.

01:11:51.080 It is not the volume.

01:11:52.140 It is

01:11:52.480 the fact

01:11:53.620 that the information

01:11:54.760 is national

01:11:55.700 defense information,

01:11:57.120 they say.

01:11:58.160 So it could be

01:11:58.760 just one document.

01:11:59.700 Right,

01:12:00.020 I guess I was just

01:12:00.840 wondering if,

01:12:01.900 right,

01:12:02.240 right,

01:12:02.540 but if you have

01:12:03.400 750,000 documents

01:12:05.280 to choose from,

01:12:06.300 so to speak,

01:12:07.600 you could imagine

01:12:08.420 that it could take you

01:12:09.220 a very long time

01:12:10.040 in court

01:12:10.460 to wander through

01:12:12.080 all of that

01:12:12.880 and find the one document

01:12:14.200 that might constitute

01:12:16.220 a smoking pistol.

01:12:17.220 But they don't even...

01:12:18.040 I'm just thinking

01:12:18.780 about you guys

01:12:19.540 being tangled up in this.

01:12:20.360 No,

01:12:20.540 but they don't even

01:12:21.120 need to do that.

01:12:22.240 They don't even

01:12:22.760 need to show it.

01:12:24.020 They just need to say

01:12:24.960 this was classified,

01:12:25.920 he published it.

01:12:27.100 It is like a strict

01:12:28.720 liability offense

01:12:30.060 and because it's

01:12:30.720 an espionage act,

01:12:32.160 so it was enacted

01:12:32.880 originally

01:12:34.020 to prosecute spies

01:12:36.100 or at least

01:12:36.620 it purported

01:12:37.320 to do so,

01:12:37.880 but it was worded

01:12:39.420 very broadly

01:12:40.300 and very vaguely

01:12:42.540 because this was enacted

01:12:43.600 in 1917

01:12:44.480 and it was immediately

01:12:45.900 used to put

01:12:48.180 dissidents,

01:12:50.740 critics of the

01:12:52.320 U.S. participation

01:12:53.240 in the First World War

01:12:54.520 in prison,

01:12:55.560 including Eugene Debs,

01:12:57.800 and so it was

01:12:59.480 immediately repurposed.

01:13:01.360 Okay,

01:13:01.660 but then for many years

01:13:03.960 it was used

01:13:04.960 to prosecute spies

01:13:06.260 and if you're

01:13:07.200 prosecuting spies,

01:13:08.280 you don't give them

01:13:09.360 a defense.

01:13:10.260 You don't give them

01:13:11.020 a public interest defense

01:13:12.880 because it's for spies,

01:13:14.680 right?

01:13:15.560 There's no public interest

01:13:16.580 defense for a spy

01:13:17.600 who's giving

01:13:18.220 a document

01:13:19.680 to South Africa,

01:13:21.020 for example.

01:13:23.000 But if you then

01:13:24.300 use the same statute

01:13:25.600 and use it against

01:13:26.880 someone who's involved

01:13:28.200 in journalistic activity

01:13:29.520 who is publishing

01:13:30.520 the information

01:13:31.360 and you say,

01:13:32.380 no,

01:13:32.520 you have no public

01:13:33.300 interest defense

01:13:36.400 because this is

01:13:37.460 an espionage statute.

01:13:39.280 So this is one

01:13:39.960 of the big arguments

01:13:41.440 that we are using

01:13:42.280 in the extradition.

01:13:43.280 So is this why

01:13:44.020 the New York Times

01:13:46.220 is concerned?

01:13:47.200 Because the line

01:13:49.440 between journalism

01:13:50.840 and espionage

01:13:51.740 is being,

01:13:52.440 well,

01:13:53.220 let's say,

01:13:53.740 blurred in a major way?

01:13:55.440 Oh,

01:13:55.600 the New York Times,

01:13:56.200 what's their concern?

01:13:57.080 They've been concerned

01:13:57.840 about this for 50 years

01:13:59.240 because the U.S.

01:14:00.200 government

01:14:00.520 under Nixon

01:14:01.220 tried to use

01:14:02.200 the Espionage Act

01:14:04.680 in relation

01:14:06.520 to the Pentagon

01:14:07.240 papers.

01:14:08.320 And at that point,

01:14:09.320 they decided

01:14:10.560 against it.

01:14:11.320 The constitutional

01:14:11.960 lawyers have been

01:14:13.600 warning since then

01:14:14.760 that one day

01:14:15.700 there will come

01:14:16.340 a U.S.

01:14:17.900 administration

01:14:18.420 that will be willing

01:14:19.600 to read

01:14:21.040 the statute

01:14:23.100 in a way

01:14:23.800 that you can

01:14:24.440 prosecute a publisher.

01:14:25.760 And the New York Times

01:14:26.620 is concerned

01:14:27.340 because the activity

01:14:28.680 that they describe

01:14:29.920 as criminal,

01:14:31.120 which is receiving

01:14:31.960 information

01:14:32.700 from a source

01:14:33.740 and possessing,

01:14:35.220 imagine,

01:14:35.660 just possessing

01:14:36.320 information,

01:14:36.900 even if you

01:14:37.360 don't publish it.

01:14:38.880 These are all

01:14:39.940 independently

01:14:41.560 charges

01:14:44.620 that stand

01:14:46.360 on their own,

01:14:46.960 just possessing

01:14:47.720 national security,

01:14:49.140 national defense

01:14:50.020 information.

01:14:50.820 It is worded

01:14:51.500 so broadly

01:14:52.080 that even

01:14:52.540 in the extradition

01:14:53.300 hearing,

01:14:54.160 one of the expert

01:14:55.340 witnesses,

01:14:55.920 who's a constitutional

01:14:56.620 lawyer,

01:14:57.440 said,

01:14:57.760 well,

01:14:57.920 even reading

01:14:58.620 national defense

01:14:59.440 information

01:14:59.920 is a violation

01:15:00.660 of the Espionage Act

01:15:01.720 because that's

01:15:02.560 how broadly

01:15:03.040 it's worded.

01:15:04.000 And now it's

01:15:04.480 finally been used

01:15:05.600 against a publisher

01:15:07.580 for the very first time

01:15:08.900 and of course

01:15:09.680 that sets a precedent.

01:15:11.280 Okay, okay.

01:15:11.920 So you can see

01:15:12.480 why the New York Times

01:15:13.460 is concerned.

01:15:14.720 Okay, so there's

01:15:15.480 17 charges

01:15:16.600 of this sort

01:15:17.480 which is also

01:15:18.400 going to be

01:15:19.040 of broad concern

01:15:19.980 to like publishers,

01:15:22.160 even those operating

01:15:23.040 at a lower scale.

01:15:24.180 So just out of curiosity,

01:15:26.360 well,

01:15:27.060 not just

01:15:27.840 because it's

01:15:29.100 it's not minimal.

01:15:31.780 Why did you guys

01:15:32.960 decide it would be

01:15:33.840 easier

01:15:34.420 in some sense

01:15:35.520 not just

01:15:37.360 to go to the U.S.

01:15:38.620 and slog 0.99

01:15:39.640 this through

01:15:40.340 in court?

01:15:41.320 Because it's not

01:15:42.420 like the pathway

01:15:43.340 that has opened up

01:15:44.920 before you

01:15:45.700 seems to be

01:15:47.480 to be much

01:15:48.400 easier

01:15:49.620 or preferable.

01:15:50.740 I mean,

01:15:51.360 your husband's in prison

01:15:52.680 and not a very good prison,

01:15:54.660 not that there are

01:15:55.460 very good prisons,

01:15:56.480 and he's suffering

01:15:57.780 immensely

01:15:58.380 as a consequence

01:15:59.300 and he's in limbo

01:16:01.440 and appears to me

01:16:03.040 to be likely

01:16:03.640 to remain there

01:16:05.160 for as long a time

01:16:07.100 as it's convenient

01:16:08.200 and possible

01:16:09.100 for people

01:16:09.660 to hold him there.

01:16:10.800 I'm wondering

01:16:11.560 why would it be worse

01:16:14.240 necessarily

01:16:15.220 to accept

01:16:16.780 the extradition,

01:16:18.300 to go to the U.S.

01:16:20.460 voluntarily

01:16:20.960 and to

01:16:21.680 raise money

01:16:23.840 for the defense

01:16:24.540 and to fight

01:16:25.200 this out in court?

01:16:27.100 I'm sure you've

01:16:27.980 thought this through

01:16:28.720 in great detail,

01:16:29.600 but it isn't

01:16:30.240 self-evident to me

01:16:31.340 given that you're,

01:16:32.220 I mean,

01:16:32.540 you're really between

01:16:33.200 a rock and a hard place,

01:16:34.460 but it isn't clear to me

01:16:35.360 that you've picked

01:16:36.820 the softer rock.

01:16:38.440 Well,

01:16:38.740 it is the less

01:16:40.020 bad solution.

01:16:43.040 All Julian is doing

01:16:44.340 is fighting,

01:16:46.480 using the law

01:16:47.920 to fight against

01:16:48.980 what is a political

01:16:50.220 persecution,

01:16:51.020 and the only

01:16:52.380 opportunity

01:16:52.920 he's going to have

01:16:53.980 to make that argument

01:16:55.440 is in the British courts

01:16:56.880 because once he comes

01:16:58.220 to the United States,

01:16:59.220 he won't be able

01:17:00.140 to argue

01:17:01.520 why he published

01:17:02.880 what he published,

01:17:04.120 the fact that

01:17:04.600 there is no harm

01:17:05.300 has come of it.

01:17:07.080 He will go into

01:17:09.320 a Virginia court,

01:17:10.300 which is

01:17:10.840 in close proximity

01:17:13.440 to CIA headquarters,

01:17:15.360 the same CIA

01:17:16.440 that plotted

01:17:17.480 to assassinate him

01:17:18.620 under the Trump 0.97

01:17:19.920 administration.

01:17:22.240 You know,

01:17:22.440 this is

01:17:22.760 the United States

01:17:25.800 that has been

01:17:26.620 breaking the law

01:17:28.500 in order to get

01:17:29.920 their hands on Julian,

01:17:31.600 and they have

01:17:33.840 total control

01:17:34.820 over him.

01:17:35.480 You're right,

01:17:36.060 the prison situation

01:17:37.520 in Belmarsh

01:17:38.700 is bad,

01:17:40.080 it's very bad.

01:17:40.920 I mean,

01:17:41.620 you know,

01:17:42.640 during the COVID period,

01:17:44.740 it was extremely

01:17:45.760 difficult for him,

01:17:46.720 and his

01:17:50.620 mental health

01:17:53.340 has at times

01:17:55.240 been in a very

01:17:56.780 fragile state,

01:17:59.380 as it would

01:18:00.480 for anyone

01:18:01.980 who was in

01:18:02.940 isolation like that,

01:18:04.840 but not just

01:18:05.680 isolation,

01:18:06.420 the sheer

01:18:06.900 injustice

01:18:08.500 of this case

01:18:10.340 also.

01:18:12.460 Well,

01:18:12.660 and the uncertainty,

01:18:13.920 I mean,

01:18:14.360 that's a terrible thing.

01:18:15.720 I mean,

01:18:16.020 once you're

01:18:16.520 sentenced

01:18:16.980 in some

01:18:17.960 real sense,

01:18:19.440 at least you

01:18:20.080 have,

01:18:21.660 it's like the

01:18:22.540 hammer has

01:18:23.080 fallen,

01:18:23.740 you know,

01:18:24.140 and it's

01:18:25.620 better in many

01:18:27.220 ways to have

01:18:27.980 the hammer

01:18:28.320 fall than to

01:18:28.980 be waiting for

01:18:29.800 an indeterminate

01:18:30.840 hammer to fall

01:18:31.800 forever.

01:18:32.900 That's an almost

01:18:34.660 unbearable

01:18:35.300 psychological condition

01:18:36.500 to be in.

01:18:37.160 There were

01:18:38.640 indications,

01:18:39.380 for example,

01:18:39.940 among the

01:18:40.340 gay population

01:18:41.100 in San Francisco

01:18:41.980 at the height

01:18:42.540 of the AIDS

01:18:43.000 epidemic,

01:18:44.220 that some

01:18:46.280 people's mental

01:18:46.880 health actually

01:18:47.500 improved after

01:18:48.360 they were

01:18:48.720 diagnosed with

01:18:49.380 AIDS,

01:18:49.720 because the

01:18:50.160 uncertainty about

01:18:51.180 whether their

01:18:51.760 behavior was going

01:18:52.620 to result in AIDS

01:18:53.560 had been resolved.

01:18:54.520 And so,

01:18:55.800 the fatal

01:18:56.600 catastrophe

01:18:57.300 had arrived

01:18:58.640 and its

01:18:59.440 actuality was

01:19:00.620 better than

01:19:01.840 its

01:19:02.640 uncertain

01:19:04.060 prediction.

01:19:05.240 And that's an

01:19:05.700 extreme case,

01:19:06.520 but the

01:19:06.780 psychological

01:19:07.220 literature is

01:19:07.940 replete with

01:19:08.560 that sort of

01:19:09.060 example.

01:19:09.680 And your

01:19:10.060 husband's in

01:19:10.540 the terrible

01:19:10.920 situation where

01:19:11.780 he faces

01:19:12.420 indeterminate

01:19:13.860 punishment for

01:19:14.960 indeterminate

01:19:15.700 reasons for

01:19:17.020 an indeterminate

01:19:17.920 period of time.

01:19:19.440 And so,

01:19:20.100 but again,

01:19:20.740 I want to ask

01:19:21.440 a bit more

01:19:21.920 because I'm

01:19:22.380 still confused.

01:19:23.540 You haven't

01:19:24.740 had a

01:19:25.160 tremendous

01:19:25.520 amount of

01:19:25.960 success in

01:19:26.580 the English

01:19:27.040 courts,

01:19:28.100 and your

01:19:28.920 husband is

01:19:29.400 in prison,

01:19:30.020 even though

01:19:30.500 by all

01:19:31.300 appearances he

01:19:32.900 shouldn't be,

01:19:34.080 given that his

01:19:36.080 sentence has

01:19:36.560 already been

01:19:37.020 served and

01:19:37.940 that the

01:19:38.260 initial

01:19:38.740 transgression

01:19:41.940 was of a

01:19:42.920 relatively minor

01:19:43.700 sort,

01:19:44.200 given the

01:19:44.600 circumstances,

01:19:45.560 I would say

01:19:46.200 I still don't

01:19:47.920 exactly understand

01:19:48.960 why you have

01:19:49.420 more distrust

01:19:50.520 of the American

01:19:51.240 court system

01:19:51.920 than you do

01:19:52.420 of the English

01:19:52.940 court system.

01:19:53.840 Are you

01:19:54.220 concerned that

01:19:55.040 his life

01:19:57.380 will be in

01:19:58.080 danger in

01:19:58.900 some more

01:19:59.480 real sense

01:20:00.260 than it

01:20:00.640 already is,

01:20:01.440 given what's

01:20:02.000 happening to

01:20:02.500 him in the

01:20:02.940 UK?

01:20:03.840 It's a

01:20:04.480 combination

01:20:04.840 of fears.

01:20:08.320 I don't

01:20:08.840 have tremendous

01:20:10.900 faith in the

01:20:11.820 justice system

01:20:12.600 full stop,

01:20:15.460 not in the

01:20:16.540 UK and

01:20:17.420 not in the

01:20:18.240 United States.

01:20:19.200 This case is

01:20:20.180 political as

01:20:22.280 it gets.

01:20:23.920 And quite

01:20:26.380 aside from

01:20:27.020 that, if

01:20:29.100 Julian's

01:20:29.560 extradited,

01:20:31.440 he may be,

01:20:32.920 well, he

01:20:33.300 will be,

01:20:33.820 this is a

01:20:34.240 national security

01:20:34.840 case, what

01:20:35.740 do they do

01:20:36.200 with national

01:20:36.620 security defendants

01:20:37.640 while they

01:20:38.260 isolate them?

01:20:39.520 And there are

01:20:40.620 many ways of

01:20:41.200 putting a person

01:20:41.840 in solitary

01:20:42.440 confinement.

01:20:42.960 In the US

01:20:43.660 they've perfected

01:20:44.500 that.

01:20:44.760 on any

01:20:46.280 given day

01:20:46.880 there are

01:20:47.560 about 80,000

01:20:48.400 people in

01:20:49.040 some form of

01:20:49.720 solitary

01:20:50.040 confinement.

01:20:51.480 And then

01:20:52.540 they have

01:20:53.120 a reserve,

01:20:54.080 a special

01:20:54.560 form of

01:20:55.240 solitary

01:20:55.600 confinement,

01:20:56.320 which is

01:20:56.540 the most

01:20:56.860 extreme one.

01:20:57.880 It's called

01:20:58.260 special

01:20:58.680 administrative

01:20:59.240 measures.

01:20:59.920 And there

01:21:00.120 are about

01:21:00.400 50 people

01:21:01.340 in the

01:21:02.140 whole of

01:21:02.440 the United

01:21:02.880 States that

01:21:03.480 are placed

01:21:03.920 under special

01:21:04.640 administrative

01:21:05.180 measures.

01:21:06.400 There's

01:21:06.960 also the

01:21:07.520 federal

01:21:08.180 supermax

01:21:09.860 prison,

01:21:11.000 ADX

01:21:11.400 Florence,

01:21:11.840 where

01:21:13.340 Julian

01:21:14.700 is likely

01:21:15.300 to be

01:21:15.700 taken.

01:21:16.820 Now,

01:21:17.740 these

01:21:18.660 potential

01:21:20.920 SAMs 0.80

01:21:22.740 or ADX

01:21:24.360 Florence,

01:21:25.420 that's

01:21:26.460 something that

01:21:27.280 initially

01:21:27.800 stopped

01:21:28.560 the UK

01:21:30.860 courts from

01:21:31.780 ordering the

01:21:32.440 extradition.

01:21:33.360 In fact,

01:21:34.180 in January

01:21:34.800 last year,

01:21:37.400 the lowest

01:21:38.520 court ruled

01:21:39.420 that Julian

01:21:39.800 should not

01:21:40.300 be extradited

01:21:41.040 because if

01:21:41.760 he is

01:21:42.020 extradited,

01:21:43.460 he will

01:21:44.520 be most

01:21:45.600 likely placed

01:21:46.340 in conditions

01:21:46.940 that will

01:21:47.400 drive him

01:21:48.000 to take

01:21:48.460 his own

01:21:48.800 life.

01:21:49.740 And the

01:21:50.880 extradition

01:21:51.820 hearing heard

01:21:52.660 multiple

01:21:54.300 experts who

01:21:57.100 had assessed

01:21:57.720 Julian and

01:21:59.460 all reached

01:22:00.140 the conclusion

01:22:00.780 that he was

01:22:01.620 at high risk

01:22:02.220 of taking

01:22:04.320 his own

01:22:04.800 life if he

01:22:05.620 was placed

01:22:06.240 in isolation

01:22:08.400 like that.

01:22:10.100 Why is he

01:22:10.740 surviving in

01:22:11.440 Belmarsh? 0.63

01:22:12.020 Well,

01:22:12.300 because he

01:22:12.800 can see

01:22:13.200 me and

01:22:14.380 the kids

01:22:15.100 and we're

01:22:16.280 able to

01:22:16.720 speak over

01:22:17.160 the phone.

01:22:18.140 Sam's

01:22:18.740 special

01:22:19.240 administrative

01:22:19.780 measures

01:22:20.420 doesn't even

01:22:23.140 allow contact

01:22:24.240 with other

01:22:24.800 prisoners or

01:22:25.520 prison guards

01:22:26.320 and you have

01:22:27.520 maybe 15

01:22:28.380 or 30

01:22:29.680 minutes a

01:22:30.400 month in

01:22:31.680 which you

01:22:32.020 can choose

01:22:32.440 to speak

01:22:32.840 to your

01:22:33.120 family or

01:22:33.720 your lawyer.

01:22:35.360 These are

01:22:35.760 the most

01:22:36.600 extreme.

01:22:39.300 You've

01:22:39.940 made a

01:22:40.200 very

01:22:40.400 credible

01:22:40.820 case for

01:22:41.480 why you're

01:22:41.960 concerned.

01:22:42.700 I understand.

01:22:43.480 But who

01:22:43.600 decides whether

01:22:44.320 you're placed

01:22:44.820 under Sam's?

01:22:46.280 The agencies,

01:22:48.700 the CIA and

01:22:49.480 so on.

01:22:50.880 Right,

01:22:51.280 right,

01:22:51.740 right.

01:22:51.960 And that

01:22:52.280 happens before

01:22:53.080 the trial.

01:22:54.020 Yes,

01:22:54.300 that happens

01:22:54.800 at any

01:22:56.760 stage.

01:22:58.140 So,

01:22:58.340 for example,

01:22:59.340 the alleged

01:23:00.500 source of

01:23:01.260 Vault 7,

01:23:01.820 Joshua

01:23:02.240 Schulte,

01:23:02.920 he's been

01:23:03.480 under

01:23:03.760 Sam's

01:23:04.260 for years

01:23:05.600 now.

01:23:06.820 And

01:23:06.940 there are

01:23:08.820 articles about

01:23:09.760 the conditions

01:23:10.400 he's in

01:23:11.260 are completely

01:23:11.980 horrific.

01:23:13.400 And he's

01:23:14.000 had to

01:23:14.600 prepare his

01:23:15.300 case from

01:23:15.620 there.

01:23:15.820 But quite

01:23:16.420 aside from

01:23:17.020 that,

01:23:17.360 there are

01:23:17.560 two other

01:23:18.020 enormously

01:23:20.820 significant

01:23:21.640 reasons,

01:23:22.280 which is

01:23:22.580 Julian

01:23:23.040 can't

01:23:23.360 mount a

01:23:23.720 defense.

01:23:25.580 He's a

01:23:26.440 foreigner.

01:23:26.960 He's an

01:23:27.220 Australian who

01:23:27.880 was published

01:23:28.300 in the

01:23:28.920 UK,

01:23:29.920 has no

01:23:31.020 connection to

01:23:31.560 the United

01:23:32.000 States.

01:23:32.780 And they

01:23:33.100 want to

01:23:33.440 pluck him 0.81

01:23:33.900 and put

01:23:34.280 him on

01:23:34.740 trial in

01:23:35.280 the United

01:23:35.680 States to

01:23:36.280 face 175

01:23:37.060 years.

01:23:37.800 They say

01:23:38.040 you have

01:23:38.340 no public

01:23:38.880 interest

01:23:39.240 defense.

01:23:40.300 And then

01:23:40.500 another thing

01:23:41.080 that they've

01:23:41.460 said is

01:23:41.860 that,

01:23:42.480 well,

01:23:43.080 we may

01:23:43.420 argue that

01:23:43.920 because he's

01:23:44.700 a foreign 0.60

01:23:45.060 national,

01:23:46.120 he does

01:23:46.460 not enjoy

01:23:47.080 First Amendment

01:23:47.640 rights.

01:23:48.580 I mean,

01:23:48.780 what is that?

01:23:49.420 If you're

01:23:49.740 going to

01:23:50.160 apply your

01:23:50.860 criminal

01:23:51.240 laws

01:23:52.260 extraterritorially

01:23:53.740 and then

01:23:54.500 you bring

01:23:54.960 this foreigner 0.79

01:23:55.660 to your

01:23:56.220 shores 0.53

01:23:57.000 and then

01:23:57.940 say,

01:23:58.280 well,

01:23:58.420 you don't

01:23:58.820 have

01:23:59.340 First Amendment,

01:24:01.080 you don't

01:24:01.420 enjoy

01:24:01.780 constitutional

01:24:02.360 rights

01:24:02.760 because you

01:24:03.240 were a

01:24:03.540 foreigner

01:24:03.780 abroad.

01:24:05.620 It's

01:24:06.100 complete.

01:24:06.760 Right.

01:24:07.140 That's

01:24:07.480 convenient.

01:24:08.080 Well,

01:24:08.140 it's basically

01:24:08.820 Guantanamo Bay.

01:24:10.220 You see,

01:24:10.800 with the war on

01:24:11.720 terror,

01:24:12.320 they changed

01:24:13.120 the rules.

01:24:13.860 They said

01:24:14.140 there are

01:24:14.380 these

01:24:14.560 exceptions.

01:24:15.300 You have

01:24:15.480 to carve

01:24:15.880 these

01:24:16.140 exceptions

01:24:16.660 where we're

01:24:17.640 not,

01:24:18.420 well,

01:24:18.640 we're kind

01:24:19.020 of breaking

01:24:19.440 international

01:24:20.020 law,

01:24:20.640 but we have

01:24:22.500 this little

01:24:22.960 way of doing

01:24:23.660 it.

01:24:24.000 And so

01:24:24.800 one of

01:24:25.140 the main

01:24:25.740 arguments

01:24:26.280 for not

01:24:26.880 putting the

01:24:27.580 Guantanamo Bay

01:24:28.440 detainees on

01:24:29.460 trial in the

01:24:30.000 United States

01:24:30.740 is because

01:24:31.220 then you

01:24:31.500 kind of

01:24:31.860 import

01:24:32.520 that

01:24:34.580 system of

01:24:35.820 exception

01:24:36.240 onto the

01:24:36.860 U.S.

01:24:37.140 jurisdiction.

01:24:38.220 I mean,

01:24:38.460 that's kind

01:24:39.120 of in the

01:24:39.480 background.

01:24:40.220 I see.

01:24:40.620 And so

01:24:40.820 you think

01:24:41.220 that's what's

01:24:41.740 happening in

01:24:42.240 the case of

01:24:42.740 your husband

01:24:43.200 is that

01:24:43.760 an extension

01:24:44.600 of the

01:24:45.080 Guantanamo Bay

01:24:45.960 bureaucratic

01:24:47.340 morass

01:24:48.060 into 0.93

01:24:49.060 American

01:24:49.780 territory

01:24:50.220 itself,

01:24:50.920 and thus

01:24:51.380 establishing

01:24:51.900 also a

01:24:52.460 very bad

01:24:52.900 precedent.

01:24:53.660 You said

01:24:54.220 that he

01:24:55.060 has been

01:24:55.520 denied a

01:24:56.560 public

01:24:56.860 interest

01:24:57.300 defense,

01:24:58.000 and is

01:24:58.200 that a

01:24:58.520 consequence

01:24:58.940 of the

01:24:59.360 nature

01:24:59.600 of the

01:24:59.880 charges?

01:25:00.460 Is it

01:25:00.980 such that

01:25:01.520 if you're

01:25:02.360 charged under

01:25:02.980 the Espionage

01:25:03.740 Act

01:25:04.000 specifically,

01:25:04.880 you may

01:25:05.300 have explained

01:25:05.820 this to me

01:25:06.360 already,

01:25:06.760 and I may

01:25:07.140 have missed

01:25:07.520 it,

01:25:07.980 if you're

01:25:08.420 charged under

01:25:09.060 the Espionage

01:25:09.800 Act

01:25:10.120 specifically,

01:25:11.300 are you

01:25:11.680 then denied

01:25:12.780 prima facie

01:25:13.820 a public

01:25:15.020 interest

01:25:15.340 defense,

01:25:16.280 which you

01:25:16.600 would have

01:25:16.940 if you were

01:25:17.500 a journalist?

01:25:18.960 No,

01:25:19.260 it's not,

01:25:19.800 there's no

01:25:20.420 definition of

01:25:22.460 who's a

01:25:23.220 journalist.

01:25:24.280 The only

01:25:24.720 factor that

01:25:27.380 is taken

01:25:27.800 into account

01:25:28.540 is whether

01:25:29.060 you received,

01:25:30.180 possessed,

01:25:30.680 and communicated

01:25:31.420 that information.

01:25:33.240 And because

01:25:33.600 you're being

01:25:34.140 tried under

01:25:35.480 that statute,

01:25:35.760 there's no

01:25:36.200 exception for

01:25:36.940 journalists.

01:25:37.280 There's no

01:25:37.600 exception for

01:25:38.300 journalists.

01:25:39.640 Okay,

01:25:40.040 got it,

01:25:40.740 got it.

01:25:41.400 And this

01:25:42.660 debate over

01:25:43.800 the Espionage

01:25:45.060 Act and

01:25:45.960 its

01:25:46.600 constitutionality

01:25:47.660 has been

01:25:48.160 there from

01:25:48.700 the beginning

01:25:49.220 for over

01:25:49.760 a hundred

01:25:50.060 years.

01:25:51.140 And some

01:25:52.020 people say

01:25:52.620 that the

01:25:53.200 whole statute

01:25:53.840 is a

01:25:54.840 violation of

01:25:55.760 the Constitution.

01:25:58.000 But it's

01:25:58.540 never been

01:25:59.060 used.

01:25:59.440 Right,

01:25:59.740 well,

01:25:59.920 so that's

01:26:00.360 also why

01:26:00.980 people,

01:26:02.660 I would say,

01:26:03.400 on a personal

01:26:04.040 level,

01:26:04.680 in the United

01:26:05.440 States in

01:26:05.980 particular,

01:26:06.420 but maybe

01:26:06.760 around the

01:26:07.180 world,

01:26:07.440 should also

01:26:07.820 be concerned

01:26:08.400 about what's

01:26:09.480 happening to

01:26:09.940 your husband.

01:26:10.560 Because,

01:26:11.260 of course,

01:26:11.760 the situation

01:26:12.440 with any

01:26:13.160 reasonable

01:26:15.400 legal tradition

01:26:16.260 is that once

01:26:17.700 a precedent

01:26:18.460 has been

01:26:18.940 established,

01:26:19.720 which it

01:26:20.040 would be

01:26:20.420 in the

01:26:20.720 case of

01:26:21.020 your husband,

01:26:21.980 it can

01:26:22.340 be indefinitely

01:26:23.620 broadly applied

01:26:24.720 to any

01:26:25.260 number of

01:26:25.820 actors.

01:26:26.420 And so,

01:26:26.720 obviously,

01:26:27.200 the New York

01:26:27.620 Times and

01:26:28.320 the Washington

01:26:29.220 Post are

01:26:30.500 perspicacious

01:26:31.520 enough to see

01:26:32.260 that threat

01:26:32.740 being levied

01:26:33.300 against them,

01:26:34.000 but that

01:26:35.420 isn't necessarily

01:26:36.380 where it would

01:26:37.060 stop,

01:26:37.980 right?

01:26:38.240 And that's

01:26:38.860 particularly

01:26:39.260 worrisome in

01:26:39.960 a case

01:26:41.160 like we

01:26:41.760 have in

01:26:42.100 the modern

01:26:42.420 world where,

01:26:43.960 I mean,

01:26:44.460 so,

01:26:44.720 for example,

01:26:45.860 as a

01:26:46.840 Canadian,

01:26:47.380 if your

01:26:48.080 husband is

01:26:48.700 convicted,

01:26:49.600 let's say,

01:26:50.380 eventually,

01:26:51.460 or even

01:26:52.000 given that

01:26:52.800 he's been

01:26:53.160 charged,

01:26:53.780 if I go

01:26:54.260 to WikiLeaks

01:26:56.020 and I

01:26:56.360 download one

01:26:58.160 of the

01:26:58.580 documents that

01:26:59.540 he's charged

01:27:00.420 with promulgating

01:27:01.900 illegally,

01:27:03.520 am I now

01:27:04.460 as egregious

01:27:05.520 a violator

01:27:06.280 of that

01:27:06.840 statute as

01:27:07.660 he is?

01:27:08.460 Because I

01:27:08.840 can't see

01:27:09.320 how I

01:27:09.700 wouldn't

01:27:10.000 be.

01:27:11.180 Well,

01:27:11.680 according to

01:27:12.320 the statute,

01:27:13.000 yeah,

01:27:13.260 but you

01:27:13.900 don't have

01:27:14.300 to limit

01:27:14.720 it to

01:27:15.100 WikiLeaks.

01:27:15.900 The New

01:27:16.120 York Times

01:27:16.620 publishes

01:27:17.280 national security

01:27:18.100 defense,

01:27:18.880 national defense

01:27:19.800 information

01:27:20.320 every day.

01:27:21.380 There are

01:27:21.580 unauthorized

01:27:22.300 disclosures

01:27:22.960 all the

01:27:23.420 time because

01:27:24.020 that is

01:27:24.460 what

01:27:24.660 journalists

01:27:25.160 do.

01:27:26.600 Good

01:27:27.160 journalists,

01:27:27.920 at least,

01:27:28.680 they publish

01:27:30.020 if it's in

01:27:30.620 the public

01:27:30.980 interest.

01:27:31.860 And if you

01:27:32.800 don't have

01:27:33.420 that ability,

01:27:34.940 then you

01:27:35.360 basically do

01:27:36.060 away with

01:27:36.660 any serious

01:27:37.240 journalism

01:27:37.820 full stop.

01:27:39.260 Well,

01:27:40.000 it's worse

01:27:40.900 than that

01:27:42.020 now,

01:27:42.440 I would

01:27:42.700 say,

01:27:43.000 because the

01:27:44.040 division line

01:27:45.680 between public

01:27:46.880 citizen and

01:27:47.720 journalist has

01:27:48.560 also become

01:27:49.800 extremely blurry.

01:27:51.780 So,

01:27:52.020 for example,

01:27:52.940 if I go to

01:27:54.720 the New York

01:27:55.200 Times and I

01:27:56.420 read an article

01:27:57.640 that has been

01:27:58.660 published without

01:27:59.560 authorization and

01:28:01.020 I share it on

01:28:02.360 Facebook to

01:28:03.380 my relatively

01:28:05.400 numerous followers,

01:28:06.400 although that's

01:28:07.140 not necessarily

01:28:08.060 relevant,

01:28:08.600 it could be

01:28:09.000 with even a

01:28:09.560 family member,

01:28:10.560 am I now a

01:28:11.340 journalist who's

01:28:12.240 disclosing state

01:28:13.180 secrets?

01:28:14.380 And the answer

01:28:14.940 to that is by

01:28:15.520 no means clear

01:28:16.440 because I'm

01:28:17.020 certainly publishing

01:28:17.800 it.

01:28:18.880 And obviously

01:28:20.060 everybody in

01:28:20.920 some real sense

01:28:21.800 has become their

01:28:22.520 own publishing

01:28:23.260 house in a

01:28:23.960 line of,

01:28:24.900 in a world of

01:28:25.940 radically accessible

01:28:27.440 social media.

01:28:28.620 And so that

01:28:29.420 should make people

01:28:30.020 very concerned

01:28:30.720 because each of

01:28:31.860 us is now a

01:28:33.400 relatively powerful

01:28:34.680 journalist in our

01:28:35.680 own right.

01:28:37.540 So whatever

01:28:38.460 happens to

01:28:39.060 journalists is

01:28:39.980 very much likely

01:28:40.960 to be able to

01:28:42.240 happen to the

01:28:42.820 rest of us.

01:28:44.320 Yeah, I mean,

01:28:45.160 a tweet is a

01:28:46.440 publication.

01:28:48.280 There's court

01:28:49.540 rulings now

01:28:50.400 that are

01:28:52.000 already creating

01:28:57.400 precedent.

01:28:59.680 And of course,

01:29:01.880 you know,

01:29:02.240 it goes to the

01:29:03.520 very fact of

01:29:04.680 our ability to

01:29:05.600 be able to

01:29:06.000 express ourselves

01:29:06.780 as well because

01:29:07.560 these platforms

01:29:08.460 are the new

01:29:10.520 public square,

01:29:11.300 right?

01:29:11.520 But we don't

01:29:12.200 understand that

01:29:13.780 public square.

01:29:14.580 We don't see

01:29:15.260 what rules are

01:29:17.620 and what,

01:29:18.640 you know,

01:29:18.940 political

01:29:19.300 considerations are

01:29:20.720 governing that

01:29:22.220 square.

01:29:23.040 And so we're

01:29:23.840 at the mercy.

01:29:25.640 And we don't

01:29:26.240 know how to

01:29:26.660 police it either.

01:29:27.700 We don't know

01:29:28.060 how to police the

01:29:28.780 square.

01:29:28.960 Well, we can't

01:29:29.380 even see the

01:29:31.120 whole square,

01:29:31.820 right?

01:29:32.080 Because we don't

01:29:32.680 even enter into

01:29:34.480 contact with,

01:29:36.540 you know,

01:29:37.020 some people in

01:29:37.620 the other part

01:29:38.100 of the square

01:29:38.580 that there's some

01:29:39.580 invisible wall

01:29:40.460 between us where

01:29:42.120 we can't see each

01:29:42.820 other's arguments.

01:29:44.160 And we're also

01:29:45.180 interacting with

01:29:46.120 agents whose

01:29:47.040 motivations and

01:29:48.020 identity not only

01:29:49.720 do we not

01:29:50.300 understand but we

01:29:51.340 can't understand.

01:29:52.180 And that would be

01:29:53.420 the case with

01:29:53.980 anonymous actors but

01:29:55.040 even more the case

01:29:55.860 with bots.

01:29:57.520 And so the

01:29:59.060 policing issue

01:29:59.740 becomes extraordinarily

01:30:00.640 difficult and I

01:30:01.600 suppose that's part

01:30:02.400 of the conundrum

01:30:03.000 that you and your

01:30:03.580 husband face too

01:30:04.500 because the legal

01:30:07.080 system, paranoid

01:30:08.380 though it may be

01:30:09.360 and reactionary

01:30:10.940 though it may be,

01:30:11.600 is also trying to

01:30:12.860 wrestle with the

01:30:14.380 fact of the

01:30:15.280 radically increased

01:30:17.020 journalistic ability

01:30:18.620 of the typical

01:30:20.640 citizen and

01:30:21.560 exemplified obviously

01:30:22.720 in the case of

01:30:23.320 your husband because

01:30:24.660 he's such a

01:30:25.800 powerful user of

01:30:26.660 this technology.

01:30:28.360 So what do you

01:30:30.820 think people who

01:30:31.720 are listening to

01:30:32.440 this podcast should

01:30:34.480 conclude with

01:30:36.520 regards to what

01:30:37.340 they think and how

01:30:38.240 they configure their

01:30:39.060 actions and is there

01:30:40.060 anything they could

01:30:40.960 do that you would

01:30:42.880 regard as ethical

01:30:44.100 and useful in

01:30:45.940 relationship to what

01:30:46.940 you're going through?

01:30:48.920 Well, I think the

01:30:51.040 first thing is to

01:30:53.180 understand that

01:30:53.960 Julian is the

01:30:55.020 locus of a

01:30:59.300 battleground

01:31:01.360 over narrative,

01:31:02.840 over who he is,

01:31:04.380 what he's done,

01:31:05.280 what his motivations

01:31:06.120 are, what WikiLeaks

01:31:07.240 is.

01:31:08.160 And essentially

01:31:09.000 WikiLeaks is

01:31:10.080 what he calls a

01:31:12.160 rebel library of

01:31:14.200 Alexandria.

01:31:16.080 The publications of

01:31:18.080 WikiLeaks have been

01:31:18.820 used in court cases.

01:31:19.880 they've, you know,

01:31:21.780 led to

01:31:22.440 someone who was

01:31:24.880 a victim of

01:31:26.380 CIA rendition

01:31:27.280 being able to win

01:31:28.140 his case against

01:31:29.200 Albania.

01:31:32.100 And it's also

01:31:33.220 revealed how

01:31:35.040 states behave

01:31:37.820 in a criminal

01:31:38.740 manner

01:31:39.440 when the stakes

01:31:42.300 are high enough

01:31:43.220 and when

01:31:44.560 the, when

01:31:46.120 you're at a

01:31:46.660 kind of

01:31:47.040 power,

01:31:49.000 top-tier

01:31:49.920 power level.

01:31:51.280 What I mean by

01:31:52.060 that is, for

01:31:53.140 example, the

01:31:54.000 State Department

01:31:54.640 cables revealed

01:31:56.140 that the U.S.

01:31:57.500 State Department

01:31:58.360 was interfering

01:31:59.400 with the

01:32:01.500 investigations

01:32:03.940 into criminal

01:32:05.760 activities

01:32:06.440 by CIA

01:32:08.160 agents

01:32:08.900 in

01:32:10.000 Germany

01:32:11.320 in relation

01:32:12.000 to the

01:32:12.520 abduction

01:32:12.940 and torture

01:32:13.520 of a German

01:32:14.320 citizen

01:32:14.800 called Khalid

01:32:15.580 al-Masri 0.83

01:32:16.140 in relation

01:32:17.900 to an

01:32:18.520 investigation

01:32:18.960 that was

01:32:19.840 initiated

01:32:20.300 in Spain

01:32:21.160 in really

01:32:23.100 where

01:32:24.360 Spanish

01:32:25.680 journalists

01:32:26.240 had been

01:32:26.840 deliberately

01:32:27.440 killed

01:32:28.780 by U.S.

01:32:29.780 forces in

01:32:30.380 Baghdad.

01:32:31.320 So there was

01:32:31.840 an investigation

01:32:32.320 there.

01:32:32.940 And similarly

01:32:34.080 in Italy.

01:32:35.560 And so the

01:32:36.040 U.S.

01:32:36.460 State Department

01:32:37.120 used its

01:32:38.500 influence,

01:32:39.500 its political

01:32:40.020 power,

01:32:41.180 to strong-arm

01:32:42.620 those countries

01:32:43.360 into dropping

01:32:44.480 those investigations

01:32:45.520 or to simply

01:32:47.820 investigate but

01:32:48.760 never actually

01:32:49.460 issue an

01:32:50.620 extradition request

01:32:51.640 or so on.

01:32:52.280 So when we

01:32:53.040 come to this

01:32:53.760 level of power,

01:32:55.520 there are no

01:32:56.240 rules.

01:32:56.660 The only rule

01:32:57.340 is how much

01:33:00.060 might

01:33:01.160 overwrite.

01:33:02.940 and that's

01:33:04.080 that's

01:33:05.280 that might

01:33:06.580 that has

01:33:07.660 descended

01:33:08.660 on Julian

01:33:09.500 and tried

01:33:10.600 to

01:33:11.560 create a

01:33:14.660 climate

01:33:15.180 of

01:33:16.280 of

01:33:18.600 a

01:33:19.480 persecutory

01:33:20.280 climate

01:33:20.920 around his

01:33:22.000 person.

01:33:22.880 In the lead-up

01:33:24.140 to his arrest,

01:33:25.100 there was a

01:33:25.760 relentless

01:33:26.320 amount of

01:33:28.040 fabricated

01:33:29.860 stories.

01:33:30.520 The Guardian

01:33:32.540 published on

01:33:33.260 the front

01:33:33.580 page of

01:33:34.480 its,

01:33:35.160 well,

01:33:36.060 on the top

01:33:36.440 of its

01:33:36.680 website,

01:33:37.140 but also

01:33:37.440 the front

01:33:37.900 page of

01:33:38.540 its

01:33:38.860 newspaper,

01:33:39.780 a completely

01:33:40.580 fabricated

01:33:41.540 story claiming

01:33:43.060 that Donald

01:33:44.600 Trump's

01:33:45.140 a...

01:33:45.500 Not the

01:33:46.120 Guardian.

01:33:46.740 That's hard,

01:33:47.580 that's so

01:33:48.000 hard to

01:33:48.480 believe.

01:33:50.040 Yeah,

01:33:50.400 they hardly

01:33:50.900 ever publish

01:33:51.680 anything that's

01:33:52.380 inflammatory and

01:33:53.360 false.

01:33:54.260 Well,

01:33:54.780 you know what?

01:33:56.000 Anyways.

01:33:57.260 The woman,

01:33:59.800 Deke Aitkenhead,

01:34:01.080 who interviewed

01:34:02.540 that hit piece.

01:34:03.660 She's fun. 0.93

01:34:04.460 Well,

01:34:04.980 interestingly,

01:34:05.940 she had also

01:34:06.980 done a hit

01:34:07.400 piece on

01:34:07.780 Julian,

01:34:08.180 so you have

01:34:08.620 that in

01:34:08.940 common.

01:34:10.160 In 2012,

01:34:11.620 she... 1.00

01:34:12.020 Oh,

01:34:12.240 yeah.

01:34:12.600 She did a... 1.00

01:34:13.300 There's a

01:34:13.900 lovely point

01:34:14.500 of contact.

01:34:15.720 She did

01:34:16.120 an interview

01:34:17.580 with Julian

01:34:18.160 about a

01:34:19.340 book he

01:34:19.620 had written

01:34:19.960 called

01:34:20.300 Cypherpunks,

01:34:22.440 Freedom and

01:34:23.560 the Future

01:34:23.920 of the

01:34:24.160 Internet.

01:34:25.380 And it's

01:34:26.480 a very

01:34:26.720 interesting

01:34:27.080 book because

01:34:27.880 it was

01:34:28.220 written a

01:34:29.240 year before

01:34:30.580 Snowden published

01:34:31.540 his publications

01:34:32.200 and it

01:34:32.700 anticipates a

01:34:33.640 lot of what

01:34:34.140 Snowden's

01:34:34.660 publications then

01:34:35.440 revealed.

01:34:37.580 And she

01:34:38.360 did with

01:34:39.240 the...

01:34:40.440 The pretext

01:34:42.240 was that it

01:34:43.000 was going to

01:34:43.600 be a book

01:34:44.800 review,

01:34:45.240 but really it

01:34:45.820 was a hit

01:34:47.380 piece.

01:34:48.260 She's very

01:34:48.800 good at

01:34:49.200 pretexts,

01:34:50.020 by the way.

01:34:51.580 A real

01:34:52.020 pro at

01:34:52.520 pretexts.

01:34:52.960 She was a

01:34:53.880 butter won't

01:34:54.440 melt in

01:34:54.920 your mouth 0.72

01:34:55.340 lovely,

01:34:56.560 polite English

01:34:57.540 woman who 0.99

01:34:58.100 had nothing

01:34:58.620 but the

01:34:58.940 best intentions

01:34:59.680 and who

01:35:00.460 we helped

01:35:00.940 set up her

01:35:01.820 technical

01:35:03.460 production because

01:35:04.280 she couldn't

01:35:04.680 quite handle

01:35:05.220 it herself and

01:35:05.920 who was all

01:35:06.360 smiles and

01:35:07.040 cheer until

01:35:08.020 she actually

01:35:08.740 let her 0.89

01:35:09.360 poison tongue

01:35:10.020 loose.

01:35:10.680 And so she

01:35:11.500 was quite the

01:35:12.020 creature as far

01:35:12.680 as I was

01:35:13.060 concerned.

01:35:13.660 So it's

01:35:14.640 lovely to

01:35:15.060 know that

01:35:15.540 your husband

01:35:17.460 and I have

01:35:17.980 that in

01:35:18.400 common.

01:35:18.620 Do you

01:35:19.180 know that

01:35:19.800 the British

01:35:20.660 diplomats

01:35:21.440 historically

01:35:22.760 they were

01:35:24.740 known because

01:35:25.520 of that

01:35:27.420 character

01:35:28.560 and a

01:35:30.340 term to

01:35:32.800 use for

01:35:34.740 the British

01:35:38.200 is

01:35:38.720 perfidious

01:35:39.400 albion.

01:35:40.860 I don't

01:35:41.060 know if

01:35:41.360 you're...

01:35:41.740 Right,

01:35:42.220 right,

01:35:42.520 right,

01:35:42.820 right.

01:35:43.140 Yes,

01:35:43.380 oh yes,

01:35:43.760 I'm familiar

01:35:44.280 with that.

01:35:44.780 I hadn't

01:35:45.480 applied...

01:35:45.820 That's great,

01:35:46.380 that's great.

01:35:47.700 I see the

01:35:49.000 relevance of

01:35:49.580 that epithet

01:35:51.360 more clearly

01:35:52.120 now that

01:35:52.600 you've

01:35:52.880 explained it.

01:35:53.600 And a lot

01:35:54.360 of these

01:35:54.640 characters that

01:35:55.440 were used

01:35:55.920 as character

01:35:56.560 assassins

01:35:58.300 against

01:35:59.280 Julian,

01:36:00.460 they're

01:36:01.040 recurring.

01:36:03.260 You know,

01:36:03.580 for example,

01:36:04.480 the one who

01:36:05.040 wrote a

01:36:06.240 piece,

01:36:08.360 he was

01:36:08.720 supposed to

01:36:12.240 be the

01:36:12.580 ghostwriter

01:36:13.140 for Julian's

01:36:14.220 autobiography.

01:36:15.140 And the

01:36:16.660 publisher went

01:36:17.640 rogue because

01:36:18.440 they anticipated

01:36:19.560 that Julian

01:36:20.100 would be

01:36:20.520 extradited

01:36:21.080 within weeks

01:36:21.760 and they

01:36:22.100 decided to

01:36:22.760 publish a

01:36:23.920 draft of

01:36:24.500 the

01:36:24.640 autobiography

01:36:25.460 without his

01:36:26.720 permission

01:36:27.160 under the

01:36:27.700 title

01:36:28.080 The Unauthorized

01:36:29.560 Autobiography.

01:36:30.780 And that

01:36:31.180 autobiography has

01:36:32.300 many,

01:36:33.200 many,

01:36:33.460 many mistakes.

01:36:34.360 For example,

01:36:35.120 it says that

01:36:35.900 Julian's father

01:36:38.800 is an

01:36:40.000 actor.

01:36:41.360 And they

01:36:42.560 made up

01:36:43.200 quotes and

01:36:43.740 then those

01:36:44.080 quotes then

01:36:44.720 got published

01:36:45.460 as if

01:36:45.900 Julian had

01:36:46.480 said them.

01:36:47.540 Anyway,

01:36:47.980 that just

01:36:48.520 the,

01:36:49.180 so that

01:36:51.220 ghostwriter

01:36:52.340 then went

01:36:53.420 on to,

01:36:54.400 once Julian's

01:36:55.420 utility to

01:36:56.180 him had

01:36:57.100 expired,

01:36:58.560 also because

01:37:01.280 there was

01:37:01.640 another potential

01:37:02.360 book deal

01:37:02.860 that fell

01:37:03.340 apart in

01:37:04.060 relation to

01:37:04.660 Snowden.

01:37:05.020 and so

01:37:07.760 this author

01:37:09.140 then went

01:37:10.000 and wrote

01:37:10.980 this

01:37:11.320 absolutely

01:37:12.540 poisonous

01:37:13.360 piece

01:37:15.000 against

01:37:15.520 Julian.

01:37:16.600 And that

01:37:18.660 same author,

01:37:20.300 do you remember

01:37:20.980 the Grenfell

01:37:21.640 Fire in

01:37:22.360 London,

01:37:23.020 where this

01:37:23.420 tower block

01:37:24.260 of apartments,

01:37:25.800 a terrible

01:37:26.360 tragedy that

01:37:27.160 happened in

01:37:27.740 2017,

01:37:29.400 where the

01:37:30.160 tower block

01:37:30.640 burned down

01:37:31.680 and it was

01:37:32.060 down to the

01:37:32.680 cladding of

01:37:34.020 the building

01:37:34.680 that the

01:37:36.360 council had

01:37:37.580 put on

01:37:40.540 the building.

01:37:41.420 Anyway,

01:37:42.020 this same

01:37:42.740 guy,

01:37:44.800 O'Hagan is

01:37:45.420 his surname,

01:37:46.560 he was then,

01:37:47.880 he then wrote

01:37:48.580 a profile about

01:37:50.000 the people who

01:37:51.860 had been living

01:37:52.360 in that

01:37:52.860 apartment block

01:37:54.080 and I

01:37:56.520 think 78

01:37:57.240 people died

01:37:58.080 and he

01:37:59.860 basically

01:38:00.780 exonerated

01:38:01.620 the council,

01:38:03.120 the authorities,

01:38:04.620 and put the

01:38:06.900 blame on the

01:38:07.460 victims.

01:38:08.540 And when I

01:38:09.020 read that,

01:38:09.640 I thought,

01:38:10.100 well,

01:38:10.320 of course,

01:38:11.460 you know,

01:38:11.620 these are people

01:38:12.740 who are in

01:38:13.460 that business 0.99

01:38:14.200 of sucking 0.98

01:38:18.040 up to power

01:38:18.740 basically.

01:38:19.380 And if you

01:38:19.780 have a state

01:38:20.760 or a

01:38:23.260 section of

01:38:23.780 the state

01:38:24.280 that

01:38:25.060 sets its

01:38:27.320 sight on

01:38:28.260 an individual

01:38:29.540 or a group

01:38:30.280 of people,

01:38:31.020 then you get

01:38:31.500 all these

01:38:32.000 opportunists

01:38:33.080 who,

01:38:34.420 or people

01:38:35.360 who are

01:38:35.660 sucking up

01:38:36.060 to the state 1.00

01:38:36.640 for their

01:38:37.160 own reason

01:38:37.640 or seeing

01:38:38.180 a career

01:38:38.720 advantage

01:38:39.280 in riding

01:38:41.940 that train.

01:38:43.280 And so

01:38:43.600 for Julian,

01:38:45.000 London,

01:38:46.160 which is

01:38:46.500 quite a

01:38:46.960 specific,

01:38:50.020 okay,

01:38:50.280 London is

01:38:51.100 a strange

01:38:52.240 city.

01:38:52.940 It is a

01:38:53.400 cutthroat,

01:38:54.500 and especially

01:38:54.960 the journalistic

01:38:55.920 world.

01:38:57.860 It is very

01:38:58.540 old boys.

01:38:59.520 I haven't

01:38:59.860 noticed that

01:39:00.520 at all.

01:39:01.800 Yeah,

01:39:02.020 it is,

01:39:02.800 you know,

01:39:03.760 elite.

01:39:04.900 I forget

01:39:05.820 the percentages,

01:39:07.040 but the

01:39:08.120 vast,

01:39:08.940 the percentage

01:39:10.040 of Oxford

01:39:11.040 and Cambridge

01:39:12.300 graduates

01:39:12.940 working in

01:39:14.560 the British

01:39:15.020 media,

01:39:16.100 you know,

01:39:16.300 the top-tier

01:39:16.860 media,

01:39:17.380 is hugely

01:39:18.480 disproportionate

01:39:19.360 when you

01:39:19.680 compare it

01:39:20.180 to other

01:39:20.540 professional

01:39:21.180 jobs.

01:39:23.720 And it

01:39:24.520 is vicious.

01:39:25.820 And so

01:39:26.100 Julian entered

01:39:26.920 that sphere,

01:39:27.620 and then they

01:39:27.980 have all

01:39:28.500 this kind

01:39:30.380 of a

01:39:30.940 slipstream

01:39:31.820 of actors

01:39:32.540 in the

01:39:34.940 media,

01:39:36.040 and in

01:39:36.460 the,

01:39:36.980 you know,

01:39:37.700 in the

01:39:38.140 whatever,

01:39:39.560 book deals,

01:39:40.940 and so on.

01:39:41.520 And Julian

01:39:42.000 kind of

01:39:42.540 entered into

01:39:43.500 that whole

01:39:45.680 environment.

01:39:47.920 You know,

01:39:48.360 as an

01:39:49.480 outsider who

01:39:51.020 created,

01:39:52.800 a radical

01:39:53.220 outsider,

01:39:54.240 there was a

01:39:54.700 lot of

01:39:55.020 jealousy,

01:39:55.960 there was a

01:39:56.560 failure to

01:39:57.240 understand him,

01:39:58.140 because Julian

01:39:58.740 is,

01:39:59.700 you mentioned,

01:40:00.480 he's on the

01:40:02.280 autism spectrum.

01:40:03.960 He is

01:40:04.940 brilliant,

01:40:06.880 brilliant,

01:40:07.680 and incredibly

01:40:09.780 engaging,

01:40:10.520 and all

01:40:12.100 these things.

01:40:12.660 He is

01:40:12.940 such an

01:40:14.800 incredible

01:40:16.440 character,

01:40:18.380 and he has

01:40:18.960 a lot of

01:40:19.520 charisma.

01:40:20.720 You make

01:40:21.540 the case

01:40:22.060 for a

01:40:23.120 radical

01:40:23.440 transparency

01:40:24.460 of the

01:40:24.840 press,

01:40:25.200 and that's

01:40:25.820 certainly a

01:40:26.320 case that

01:40:26.660 I'm

01:40:27.300 inclined in

01:40:27.900 many ways

01:40:28.340 to agree

01:40:29.220 with a

01:40:30.000 priori,

01:40:30.900 and perhaps

01:40:31.720 also in

01:40:32.540 the case of

01:40:33.000 your husband

01:40:33.420 more specifically.

01:40:34.860 You also

01:40:35.460 make the

01:40:35.820 case that

01:40:36.400 he's done

01:40:36.980 a lot of

01:40:37.600 good.

01:40:39.320 But I

01:40:40.200 would like

01:40:40.480 to ask

01:40:40.760 you two

01:40:41.100 questions.

01:40:42.440 What harm,

01:40:43.620 if any,

01:40:45.000 in relationship

01:40:45.800 to that

01:40:46.300 good do

01:40:46.720 you think

01:40:47.160 WikiLeaks

01:40:47.960 and your

01:40:48.400 husband has

01:40:49.120 done,

01:40:50.220 given the

01:40:51.500 magnitude of

01:40:52.140 his operation

01:40:52.820 and the

01:40:53.280 technological

01:40:54.320 novelty of

01:40:55.540 this form

01:40:56.440 of journalism?

01:40:57.420 What are

01:40:57.720 the moral

01:40:58.060 hazards,

01:40:58.640 let's say,

01:40:59.120 real and

01:40:59.680 possible?

01:41:00.680 And why

01:41:01.560 have you

01:41:02.660 decided to

01:41:03.380 be so

01:41:03.860 radically

01:41:04.520 on his

01:41:05.340 side,

01:41:06.760 despite the

01:41:07.400 fact that,

01:41:08.580 while he has

01:41:08.960 a wealth of

01:41:09.560 powerful enemies,

01:41:10.400 he has a

01:41:10.680 very diverse

01:41:11.280 range of

01:41:11.980 powerful enemies,

01:41:13.000 many,

01:41:13.600 many accusations

01:41:14.600 have been

01:41:15.100 levied against

01:41:15.760 him.

01:41:16.220 You know,

01:41:16.480 you might

01:41:16.740 think,

01:41:17.280 well,

01:41:17.380 a sensible

01:41:17.820 woman would 1.00

01:41:18.440 think,

01:41:19.240 I could

01:41:21.660 find an

01:41:22.100 easier life.

01:41:24.100 I could

01:41:24.800 find an

01:41:25.200 easier life

01:41:25.780 somewhere else.

01:41:27.420 But you've

01:41:28.040 made the

01:41:28.380 decision to

01:41:29.240 dive into

01:41:29.820 this in

01:41:30.480 the deepest

01:41:30.940 possible way.

01:41:32.060 And so,

01:41:32.700 the first

01:41:33.120 issue is,

01:41:34.400 what's the

01:41:35.560 harm that

01:41:36.300 WikiLeaks

01:41:37.660 is promoting,

01:41:39.260 if any,

01:41:40.740 that needs

01:41:41.380 to be

01:41:41.680 considered in

01:41:42.240 relation to

01:41:42.720 the good?

01:41:43.100 And the

01:41:43.360 second is,

01:41:43.940 why do you

01:41:44.340 trust this

01:41:44.900 man,

01:41:45.460 given that

01:41:45.980 he's at

01:41:46.700 the center

01:41:47.140 of this

01:41:47.520 absolutely,

01:41:49.420 in some

01:41:49.900 sense,

01:41:50.320 unprecedented

01:41:51.120 level of

01:41:52.460 controversy?

01:41:54.280 Well,

01:41:54.840 I can't

01:41:55.240 answer the

01:41:55.760 question,

01:41:56.540 the first

01:41:56.900 question,

01:41:57.560 because it

01:41:58.720 is completely

01:41:59.740 abstract.

01:42:00.600 Now,

01:42:00.780 the U.S.

01:42:01.660 government

01:42:02.060 had talking

01:42:04.440 points when

01:42:05.900 WikiLeaks first

01:42:06.740 started publishing

01:42:07.480 the Manning

01:42:09.380 leaks,

01:42:10.320 and they

01:42:12.320 completely

01:42:12.840 reversed the

01:42:14.600 true situation.

01:42:16.800 So, for

01:42:17.100 example,

01:42:17.660 WikiLeaks had

01:42:18.200 just published

01:42:18.900 the existence

01:42:22.740 of 15,000

01:42:24.480 victims,

01:42:27.200 civilians,

01:42:27.600 who had been

01:42:28.300 killed.

01:42:28.840 It had been

01:42:29.420 completely

01:42:29.880 unacknowledged.

01:42:31.480 And what

01:42:32.600 did they do?

01:42:33.120 They reversed

01:42:33.700 it to say

01:42:34.300 WikiLeaks has

01:42:35.000 blood on its

01:42:36.080 hands,

01:42:36.480 and when

01:42:37.260 the U.S.

01:42:37.960 has been

01:42:39.000 under oath

01:42:41.160 in the

01:42:41.640 court-martial

01:42:42.440 of Chelsea

01:42:43.040 Manning

01:42:43.420 and afterwards

01:42:44.420 in the

01:42:44.820 extradition

01:42:45.260 hearing,

01:42:45.920 they have

01:42:46.260 had to

01:42:46.580 admit that

01:42:47.180 they have

01:42:47.680 no evidence

01:42:49.120 to back

01:42:49.660 the claim.

01:42:51.420 So,

01:42:51.720 you know,

01:42:52.400 the fact

01:42:53.720 is that

01:42:54.020 WikiLeaks

01:42:54.440 operates

01:42:55.080 at scale

01:42:56.060 and that

01:42:58.300 has

01:42:59.480 risks,

01:43:00.920 of course,

01:43:01.340 but it

01:43:01.680 has also

01:43:02.540 uncovered

01:43:04.100 war crimes,

01:43:06.380 torture.

01:43:07.640 Yeah,

01:43:07.860 well,

01:43:08.000 I guess,

01:43:09.140 well,

01:43:09.680 part of what

01:43:10.160 runs through

01:43:10.740 my mind,

01:43:11.260 I guess,

01:43:11.580 is the

01:43:11.880 proposition

01:43:12.360 that we

01:43:14.500 have a

01:43:14.900 right to

01:43:15.260 free speech

01:43:15.820 because such

01:43:17.440 things,

01:43:18.080 in some sense,

01:43:18.840 can't be

01:43:19.460 decided at the

01:43:20.280 level of

01:43:20.720 particular detail.

01:43:22.120 It has to be

01:43:22.860 something like

01:43:23.580 it's the

01:43:24.920 journalist's

01:43:25.640 right and

01:43:26.100 responsibility

01:43:26.740 to make

01:43:27.680 what might

01:43:28.780 want to be

01:43:29.620 kept secret

01:43:30.280 available.

01:43:31.600 And then I

01:43:32.080 suppose it's

01:43:32.740 the responsibility

01:43:34.440 and obligation

01:43:35.240 of people

01:43:35.760 who are

01:43:36.060 working in

01:43:37.040 the more

01:43:37.400 narrow domain

01:43:38.820 of state

01:43:39.340 security to

01:43:40.500 try to

01:43:40.880 maintain their

01:43:41.540 barriers.

01:43:42.120 But there's

01:43:42.460 going to be

01:43:42.900 a beneficial

01:43:44.140 antagonism

01:43:45.060 between the

01:43:45.640 two,

01:43:45.980 let's say,

01:43:46.580 because it's

01:43:47.240 hard to get

01:43:47.680 that exactly

01:43:48.300 right.

01:43:49.000 And it's

01:43:49.400 not appropriate

01:43:50.240 for the

01:43:50.800 state security

01:43:51.660 agents,

01:43:52.660 even though

01:43:53.060 they have

01:43:53.440 their domain,

01:43:54.380 to interfere

01:43:55.060 with the

01:43:55.620 overarching

01:43:56.080 freedom of

01:43:56.720 expression and

01:43:57.360 the free

01:43:57.720 press.

01:43:58.480 And your

01:43:58.760 case,

01:43:59.220 as far as I

01:43:59.660 can tell,

01:44:00.060 in Julian's

01:44:00.560 case,

01:44:00.960 basically hinges

01:44:01.660 on the

01:44:02.780 proposition that

01:44:03.880 what he is

01:44:04.860 most fundamentally

01:44:05.980 is a

01:44:07.200 journalist.

01:44:08.340 And that

01:44:08.780 what he's

01:44:09.180 doing,

01:44:09.820 although it's

01:44:10.280 at scale

01:44:10.820 and in a

01:44:11.440 new technological

01:44:12.060 platform,

01:44:12.740 is indistinguishable

01:44:13.720 from what

01:44:14.380 journalists should

01:44:15.280 do that's

01:44:15.960 moral and

01:44:16.400 appropriate.

01:44:17.840 And that

01:44:18.280 the fact that

01:44:19.260 he's being

01:44:19.760 persecuted on

01:44:21.340 multiple fronts

01:44:22.120 simultaneously,

01:44:23.180 some clearly

01:44:23.860 more egregious

01:44:24.620 than others,

01:44:25.640 does in fact

01:44:26.400 pose a threat

01:44:27.120 to the

01:44:27.580 integrity of

01:44:28.340 that freedom

01:44:28.860 of expression

01:44:29.560 in such a

01:44:30.300 manner that

01:44:30.680 everyone should

01:44:31.320 be concerned

01:44:31.900 about it.

01:44:32.760 Does that

01:44:33.160 seem an

01:44:34.280 appropriate

01:44:34.740 summation?

01:44:36.020 Yes,

01:44:36.440 I think that's

01:44:37.060 fair.

01:44:37.560 I think it's

01:44:38.020 also fair to

01:44:38.700 say that

01:44:39.340 he goes

01:44:41.000 beyond

01:44:44.280 journalism

01:44:45.260 in the sense

01:44:46.480 that,

01:44:47.740 not he,

01:44:48.960 but WikiLeaks

01:44:49.700 as it

01:44:50.180 basically

01:44:51.060 is a

01:44:53.740 repository

01:44:54.240 for our

01:44:55.140 contemporaneous

01:44:55.880 history.

01:44:56.380 and that

01:44:57.320 is also

01:44:58.000 there's a

01:44:58.460 people's

01:44:58.960 right to

01:45:01.880 know their

01:45:02.300 own history,

01:45:02.980 the truth

01:45:03.380 of the

01:45:03.640 history.

01:45:05.420 And,

01:45:05.680 you know,

01:45:06.800 there are

01:45:06.980 victims who

01:45:07.580 are never

01:45:07.940 even recognized

01:45:08.940 because that

01:45:09.720 truth is

01:45:11.600 suppressed

01:45:12.140 because of

01:45:13.780 who controls

01:45:14.380 the information.

01:45:15.680 He's not a

01:45:17.340 transparency

01:45:18.120 maximalist,

01:45:18.980 like,

01:45:19.400 sorry,

01:45:20.220 fundamentalist.

01:45:21.700 he is a

01:45:22.500 transparency

01:45:23.180 maximalist.

01:45:24.240 He's not

01:45:24.660 against

01:45:25.660 reductions.

01:45:27.100 He has

01:45:27.440 engaged in

01:45:28.140 reductions

01:45:28.620 with the

01:45:30.180 material,

01:45:31.020 but he

01:45:31.520 has an

01:45:34.800 attachment

01:45:35.340 to the

01:45:36.900 historical

01:45:37.580 record and

01:45:38.420 the importance

01:45:39.060 that it

01:45:39.480 transcends

01:45:39.980 each smaller

01:45:41.100 interest and

01:45:41.880 the interests

01:45:42.560 of smaller

01:45:43.580 actors,

01:45:44.800 and journalists

01:45:45.980 have that

01:45:47.040 principle,

01:45:48.880 should hold

01:45:49.520 that principle

01:45:50.120 at its

01:45:51.180 highest.

01:45:52.040 Well,

01:45:52.240 you made

01:45:52.540 a strong

01:45:52.960 case for

01:45:53.500 his

01:45:53.720 judiciousness

01:45:54.480 in the

01:45:54.760 release,

01:45:55.200 and that

01:45:55.400 was quite

01:45:55.700 surprising

01:45:56.160 to me,

01:45:56.600 given the

01:45:57.080 scale of

01:45:57.600 his releases.

01:45:59.040 And so

01:45:59.320 maybe,

01:45:59.880 if you don't

01:46:00.280 mind,

01:46:00.540 we could end

01:46:01.020 with the

01:46:01.340 more personal

01:46:01.880 question,

01:46:02.480 which is,

01:46:03.400 why do you

01:46:05.060 trust this

01:46:05.640 man?

01:46:06.980 Well,

01:46:07.260 because I

01:46:07.680 know him.

01:46:08.600 Well,

01:46:08.920 okay,

01:46:09.180 so tell me.

01:46:10.060 This is a

01:46:10.780 genuine question.

01:46:11.620 It's not an

01:46:12.940 artificial closer.

01:46:14.160 I mean,

01:46:14.520 you're in a

01:46:15.060 tricky situation.

01:46:16.820 I mean,

01:46:17.780 you're dealing

01:46:18.620 with a man

01:46:19.160 who's,

01:46:19.780 by your own

01:46:20.680 account,

01:46:21.040 very charismatic

01:46:21.740 and very

01:46:22.600 powerful technically

01:46:23.580 and in terms

01:46:24.560 of reputation,

01:46:25.460 and he has

01:46:26.400 a lot of

01:46:27.360 enemies and

01:46:28.100 a lot of

01:46:28.760 allegations against

01:46:29.680 him,

01:46:30.460 any one of

01:46:31.300 which could

01:46:31.740 easily taint

01:46:32.780 his reputation

01:46:33.740 permanently.

01:46:35.900 And yet,

01:46:36.780 you've decided

01:46:37.620 not only to

01:46:38.520 support him,

01:46:39.280 let's say,

01:46:39.780 professionally,

01:46:40.380 but also to

01:46:40.960 lock your

01:46:41.360 life into

01:46:42.640 his life,

01:46:43.520 when you,

01:46:44.420 at least in

01:46:44.880 principle,

01:46:45.280 had other

01:46:45.640 options.

01:46:46.080 And you

01:46:46.780 say you

01:46:47.200 know him.

01:46:48.000 What is

01:46:48.700 it about

01:46:49.240 him that

01:46:50.420 has compelled

01:46:51.600 you?

01:46:52.040 And you

01:46:52.500 should have

01:46:52.820 some wisdom.

01:46:53.500 You've been

01:46:53.820 a lawyer.

01:46:54.340 You're well

01:46:54.720 educated.

01:46:55.320 You should

01:46:55.900 have some

01:46:56.220 sense of

01:46:56.640 how the

01:46:56.900 world works.

01:46:57.380 You shouldn't

01:46:57.860 be someone

01:46:58.460 over whose

01:47:00.000 eyes the

01:47:00.600 wool is

01:47:01.080 particularly

01:47:01.660 easily pulled.

01:47:03.340 And you've

01:47:03.780 come to this

01:47:04.340 decision and

01:47:05.000 you made a

01:47:05.440 public case

01:47:05.960 for it.

01:47:06.300 You've paid

01:47:06.620 a price

01:47:07.060 for it.

01:47:07.700 Why?

01:47:08.820 What's

01:47:09.300 compelled you

01:47:09.920 to believe

01:47:10.580 that he's

01:47:11.360 who he

01:47:12.040 claims to

01:47:12.640 be?

01:47:14.540 Well,

01:47:15.300 because I've

01:47:18.680 known him

01:47:19.200 since 2011

01:47:20.140 and this

01:47:22.240 is also

01:47:22.940 my life.

01:47:23.900 This isn't

01:47:24.360 just why

01:47:25.420 do you

01:47:26.300 attach

01:47:27.740 yourself to

01:47:28.840 him.

01:47:29.220 It's the

01:47:29.640 same thing.

01:47:30.420 And I

01:47:30.740 entered

01:47:31.440 into

01:47:32.000 contact

01:47:33.700 with

01:47:34.200 Julian

01:47:34.600 initially

01:47:36.240 professionally.

01:47:38.460 I observed

01:47:39.580 what was

01:47:40.340 happening to

01:47:41.060 him and

01:47:41.580 what

01:47:41.840 happened

01:47:42.640 how the

01:47:43.420 world

01:47:44.240 around

01:47:44.820 him

01:47:45.240 populated

01:47:47.100 by

01:47:48.100 well-meaning

01:47:49.900 people who

01:47:50.700 sometimes had

01:47:51.540 no interest

01:47:52.220 but sometimes

01:47:52.860 well-meaning

01:47:54.120 people who

01:47:55.260 had an

01:47:55.700 interest.

01:47:56.280 And that in

01:47:56.680 fact he

01:47:57.120 was in a

01:47:58.680 very vulnerable

01:47:59.400 position,

01:48:00.900 being high

01:48:01.460 profile as

01:48:03.240 he was,

01:48:04.380 and actually

01:48:04.860 an extremely

01:48:05.460 vulnerable

01:48:06.000 political

01:48:06.560 position because

01:48:07.660 his liberty

01:48:09.440 depended

01:48:10.780 on his

01:48:12.240 political

01:48:13.040 capital and

01:48:14.100 that's what

01:48:14.580 was targeted.

01:48:15.460 And I

01:48:15.700 saw all

01:48:16.220 these lies

01:48:17.240 being

01:48:17.580 constructed

01:48:18.180 around him

01:48:18.940 and observed

01:48:20.880 how in a

01:48:22.240 sense the

01:48:23.980 surroundings,

01:48:26.960 like the

01:48:27.260 people around

01:48:27.960 us or the

01:48:29.300 press which I

01:48:30.180 previously had

01:48:30.940 trusted as a

01:48:33.820 normal person

01:48:34.680 was malicious

01:48:36.080 and maliciously

01:48:37.080 representing him,

01:48:38.440 maliciously

01:48:39.180 representing

01:48:39.800 reality.

01:48:40.760 And so it's

01:48:41.660 not like I

01:48:42.220 could just

01:48:42.640 choose to

01:48:43.700 take their

01:48:44.380 side because

01:48:45.380 they're wrong,

01:48:47.020 you know,

01:48:47.340 because it was

01:48:48.780 being, it was

01:48:49.780 deliberate and

01:48:50.580 it was, I

01:48:51.100 could witness

01:48:52.160 the persecution

01:48:53.240 as a

01:48:55.120 bystander

01:48:56.200 and as

01:48:58.500 then as an,

01:48:59.580 also as an

01:49:00.180 implicated

01:49:01.380 party.

01:49:02.640 And, you

01:49:03.680 know, the

01:49:04.160 incredible

01:49:05.020 political,

01:49:05.760 we wanted

01:49:06.900 to live

01:49:07.480 our

01:49:08.120 relationship

01:49:08.760 and have

01:49:10.880 a family.

01:49:11.660 And even

01:49:12.080 that was

01:49:13.400 a kind of

01:49:14.440 a political

01:49:15.100 act, not

01:49:16.660 because we

01:49:17.080 were trying to

01:49:17.560 make a

01:49:17.840 political act,

01:49:18.640 but because we

01:49:19.260 wanted to

01:49:19.680 live our

01:49:20.020 lives.

01:49:20.540 And so

01:49:20.880 together.

01:49:23.680 Okay, so

01:49:24.380 your case in

01:49:25.400 large part is,

01:49:26.840 if I've got it

01:49:27.660 right, is that

01:49:28.340 you're not in

01:49:30.200 some sense

01:49:31.100 merely seeing

01:49:33.040 this through

01:49:33.620 Julian's eyes.

01:49:34.620 and you're

01:49:35.280 not merely

01:49:35.740 an advocate

01:49:36.360 for his

01:49:36.860 point of

01:49:37.280 view.

01:49:37.560 You've been

01:49:37.980 around and

01:49:38.840 in the

01:49:39.140 trenches long

01:49:39.880 enough, and

01:49:40.320 so it's

01:49:40.600 11 years

01:49:41.220 now, that

01:49:42.400 you've seen

01:49:43.220 the malfeasance

01:49:44.440 and spiteful

01:49:46.100 accusations

01:49:46.880 firsthand, and

01:49:49.180 you've seen

01:49:49.540 the facts

01:49:50.100 behind that

01:49:50.940 firsthand within

01:49:52.520 the confines of

01:49:53.360 your own

01:49:53.720 experience.

01:49:55.020 And so

01:49:55.400 your experience

01:49:56.780 happens to

01:49:57.480 dovetail with

01:49:58.560 that of your

01:49:59.080 husband, but

01:50:00.080 you've been

01:50:00.440 able to draw

01:50:01.080 your own

01:50:01.920 conclusions

01:50:02.640 independent of

01:50:03.820 whatever sway

01:50:04.780 your emotional

01:50:05.980 attachment to

01:50:06.720 him might also

01:50:07.500 exert.

01:50:08.340 Does that seem

01:50:08.880 reasonable?

01:50:09.700 I've lived

01:50:10.460 this, yes.

01:50:11.460 I've lived

01:50:11.920 this, and

01:50:12.660 the CIA has 0.68

01:50:13.800 plotted to kill

01:50:14.500 him, and 0.98

01:50:15.280 they also

01:50:15.740 instructed people

01:50:17.160 to take the

01:50:17.960 DNA of our

01:50:19.000 six-month-old

01:50:19.720 baby's nappy.

01:50:21.440 It's just, they

01:50:22.220 followed my

01:50:22.840 mother.

01:50:24.020 There's just

01:50:24.920 no, there's

01:50:26.160 not even a

01:50:27.260 choice in the

01:50:28.420 matter, because

01:50:29.260 every single

01:50:33.160 aspect of our

01:50:34.300 lives has been

01:50:34.980 intruded on, and

01:50:36.700 it's not just

01:50:37.700 Julian, it's

01:50:38.460 me, it's our

01:50:40.080 son, it's his

01:50:40.780 lawyers, but

01:50:42.000 more broadly,

01:50:45.000 what they're

01:50:45.660 doing to

01:50:46.240 Julian is

01:50:47.280 corrupting

01:50:48.700 our Western

01:50:51.720 liberal democracy

01:50:52.680 as we, as

01:50:54.600 we, as the

01:50:55.960 ideal is.

01:50:56.840 I'm not saying

01:50:57.420 that it's ever

01:50:57.960 been that, but

01:50:59.820 it's a

01:51:00.240 fundamental

01:51:00.800 corruption and

01:51:02.240 a step into

01:51:06.580 a categorically

01:51:08.260 different reality.

01:51:10.740 Well, that's

01:51:11.600 an excellent

01:51:12.280 summation to

01:51:14.800 end on, as

01:51:15.480 far as I'm

01:51:16.000 concerned, and

01:51:16.760 my condolences,

01:51:18.640 in some sense,

01:51:19.580 on your

01:51:20.700 situation.

01:51:21.440 I have some

01:51:22.140 idea about

01:51:24.540 what you're

01:51:26.100 going through

01:51:26.700 not least

01:51:27.460 because of

01:51:28.040 observing the

01:51:29.380 consequences

01:51:30.780 of, I

01:51:32.500 suppose, the

01:51:33.080 similarities between

01:51:33.940 what I've

01:51:34.340 experienced and

01:51:34.940 what your

01:51:35.220 husband has

01:51:35.700 experienced, which

01:51:36.480 he certainly

01:51:37.240 has had the

01:51:37.760 worst of it, I

01:51:38.360 would say, but

01:51:39.240 I've also watched

01:51:39.940 the effect of

01:51:40.540 that on her, and

01:51:42.240 that's not a

01:51:43.360 pleasant thing to

01:51:43.960 witness by any

01:51:44.780 stretch of the

01:51:45.220 imagination, and

01:51:46.100 I hope that you

01:51:47.440 are capable, the

01:51:49.000 two of you, of

01:51:49.800 holding it

01:51:51.120 together and

01:51:51.840 maintaining your

01:51:53.000 wise counsel and

01:51:55.260 level heads, and

01:51:56.440 finding your way

01:51:58.120 through this awful

01:51:58.860 maze without being

01:52:00.500 tangled up in the

01:52:01.400 spider's web so

01:52:02.240 terribly that the

01:52:03.400 spider comes and

01:52:05.420 devours.

01:52:06.660 So, good luck to

01:52:08.860 you, and thank you

01:52:09.740 very much for

01:52:10.240 talking to me

01:52:10.840 today.

01:52:11.140 we'll see you guys

01:52:13.060 here.

01:52:13.820 Bye.

01:52:21.160 Thanks.

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - October 03, 2022

293. Julian Assange： Free Speech Martyr？ Featuring Stella Assange

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript