“This Could Have Been Prevented”
An interrogation on behalf of Julian Assange. Cover up?
Overview: It’s been 3 years since Britain released documents concerning the Assange case but only drips and dribbles of news stories have been reported. In hindsight, it would be understandable if Assange were outraged at the handling of the FOIA data results.
This is an interrogation on behalf of Julian Assange who is unable to interrogate the actions or inactions of two colleagues. I have persisted in my calls for transparency and explanations for over 6 months with none provided. Instead, I have faced backlash, been threatened with a lawsuit, called obsessive, crazy and my motivations have been mischaracterised as a vendetta or an attempt to undermine support for Assange or his colleagues Kristinn Hrafnsson and Stefania Maurizi. It is my intention to adopt the voice of Julian Assange who is, at this moment, caged in a COVID infested jail cell in maximum security, traumatised, separated from his fiancee and kids, without access to the internet, legal documents or lawyers. It must be terrifying. This post is written with the intention of asking questions Assange himself might want to ask if he had the freedom to do so. My motivation and priority is preserving the life and securing the freedom of Julian Assange.
During the past 6 months, I have come to recognize Hrafnsson and Maurizi’s behaviour as “Gaslighting”, so the subtext of this article is GaslightingJude. Just as UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer was ignored by mainstream media, governments who are culpable of arbitary detention and torture of Assange and his reports were suppressed, I too have experienced backlash, unmerited ostracization and my work has been ignored by the two journalists whom I considered allies and colleagues. If gaslighting tactics are deployed against Assange to destroy him, so too, gaslighting tactics will be deployed against his truest allies and advocates. It is happening to the Assange defence team with vehemence.
Irrespective of Hrafnsson or Maurizi’s personal opinion of me, the release of the full documents is and was critical in the defence of Julian Assange. Had they tweeted, written blogs/articles or press releases or conducted interviews on the findings and education I have provided, it is certain that Assange could have been rescued from the hell, theft and medical emergencies he has undergone. The story needs legs but inaction has handicapped it.
If Assange could speak for himself what would he say, in hindsight and going forward? (Jump to the end of this post)
Facts, History, Context:
First, take a look at this tweet, written by Assange on Nov. 11, 2017 prior to his censorship on/from the Internet and during a time when Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) claimed to have deleted all files related to his case. It appears that Assange did not have access to the full document cache obtained by Maurizi beginning Aug. 3 2017 through to December 2017. She obtained 5 sets of FOIA results which totalled 545 pages, available on the UK’s CPS site. Assange had access to the “tip of the iceberg”, not the full set of documents as they were released. The tweet below was posted 3 months after the release of Annex 15 of the FOIA results.
Urgent Need to Amplify Facts Exposed rather than Ignore or Bury Them.
Britain is getting away with torturing and asphixiating Assange. It’s been a decade. Anyone with a firing neuron in their skull understands it’s about exposing things the UK and US don’t want to be exposed. It’s not that the UK is naive or ignorant about torture. It has signed international treaties concerning the absolute prohibition of torture and the UN Rapporteur Nils Melzer on Torture has challenged it to investigate Assange’s case in detail. That was a year ago. To date, despite having agreed to the protocols for being a signatory of the Convention Against Torture (CAT), it has stonewalled Nils Melzer by refusing to conduct a thorough investigation or even cease it’s torture.
Torture for Dummies: With every day of torture, the risk of death and irreversible damage increases. Every hour, every minute, every meal or not-meal, every second of sleep deprivation, negative media story and now the ominous presence of COVID19 all concentrate the torture of Assange exponentially. There is an immediate requirement to investigate the torture claims, cease the torture, then grant Assange freedom and compensation.
In this context, I’ll state the obvious: to delay reporting of UK corruption in the Assange case is complicity in torture. Time is of the essence. To be passive is to be complicit. Any prolongation of torture is cruel, and inhumane. Any extension compounds his serious mental and physical health conditions. Prolongation of Assange’s arbitrary detention in a Covid infested jail increases the risk of him dying. I am gravely concerned for Assange’s welfare.
My questions remain unanswered
I continue to be alarmed over the suppression of information from a UK government site which could have been a game-changer in the Assange Case by both the Editor in Chief of Wikileaks, Kristinn Hrafnsson and a respected journalist Stefania Maurizi. For over 190 days (6 mo.s) I have sought answers and action but have not received any justification or appropriate follow up. Based on four FOIA annexes (posts of UK documents online), Assange should be free. When information is of historic, diplomatic, ethical or political value, it is crucial that it is disclosed in a manner which could effect positive change with maximum exposure across the world. The timing of disclosures is important in this case as it could have precluded years of arbitrary detention, torture and the impending prospect of US extradition.
It’s August 8th and Wikileaks still has not published a link to the emails which are the “smoking gun” proving the political and procedural abuse of the CPS. I am calling for the resignation of Wikileaks Editor in Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson, who was in possession of a full cache of multiple FOIA Annexes (545 pgs in total) concerning the Assange case, directly from the UK government website, but did not publish, disclose or index that information in early Feb. 2020.
Background: Exculpatory Information was Suppressed.
I have followed and researched the Assange case closely for a decade. On Feb. 1, 2020 I stumbled upon multiple caches of documents, many of which I had never before seen. I was stunned. I queried Twitter (accounts and general posts) as to whether or not they had been previously reported. I shared the link for crowdsourcing efforts then wrote a blog proving Britain cheated Assange. It’s plain as day. To the best of my knowledge I am the only journalist to have reported on this specific finding.
It might make me unpopular, but journalism is not a popularity contest.
What would Julian Assange have done with those documents?
Put yourself in the dark COVID place where Assange currently resides, emotionally and physically. Now rewind to August 2017 before he was placed under intense surveillance at Ecuador’s embassy in London and disconnected from the internet.
Would he have withheld any in whole or in part? Would he have indexed and published them for easier access and referencing for journalists and bloggers (eg. Podesta and Stratfor email releases)? Would he, as Editor in Chief of Wikileaks at the time, deem the emails to be insignificant from an historical, political or ethical standard? Wikileaks is the publisher of last resort, not bound by publication bans, that releases information of historical, diplomatic, ethical and political value. It appears, from this tweet below, that in Nov. 2017 he did not have the full annexes of FOIA results obtained by Maurizi on Aug. 3, 2017. Reread the tweet below.
His case is precedent setting for press freedom around the world.
How plausible is the theory that while Assange still had access to the internet, lawyers and journalists that somehow this link with multiple annexes escaped him? I know, right? That would be a stratospheric departure from sanity. An insult to Assange, his legal team and even researchers such as me.
It’s been 6 months since I posted the link to the FOIA results. To date, neither Hrafnsson (at the helm of Wikileaks), nor Wikileaks, nor Maurizi have reposted the link nor the article I wrote which explains their relevance. That translates into 190 days of Assange’s arbitrary detention, torture, lack of legal access and exposure to Covid19. Both journalists have large social media platforms and influence. Wikileaks has over 5.5 million followers on Twitter; Maurizi has 22 thousand followers. The Twitter responses I got from both Hrafnsson and Maurizi were disappointing. It’s shocking that the information has not been shared in full by either online: not on twitter handles, not in Wikileaks press releases, not in any of Maurizi’s articles. There has only been a drip of information and over 90 percent of it has been swept under the carpet. That is why I thought I had discovered new information when I stumbled upon the UK government’s link to FOIA requests that were responsive to “Assange”. I took the information, reviewed it immediately, tweeted the link and crowdsourced with tweeps on Feb. 1st, 2020 and produced a blog here which brought light to portions of the emails which had previously been unpublished. I had never seen much of the content before. The turn-around time was less than 24 hours.
I have had some feedback concerning this link (inserted FOIA annexes), which reportedly was widely available in the public domain. I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I am a thorough researcher and had never seen these annexes until Feb. 1, 2020. It’s interesting that there is a “revisionist” effort unfolding which is meant to label it as “old news”. My question is this: Why was it not widely reported upon? There were a few articles by Maurizi and the Guardian but for the most part, much of the content was not reported on. I stand by my assertion that this was shocking new information. I do not accept that every single search engine I’ve used for over 9 yrs did not yield the apparently obvious, widely public annex results. It reminds me of “nothing to see here” talking points in strategic incapacitation operations. It is also reminiscent of the hacker culture of “pawning” and claiming to have been the first one to hack something… which I did not do. It was pure research].
Credit where credit is due:
Thanks to the sleuth work of Stefania Maurizi who filed FOIA requests across multiple jurisdictions of countries, we have knowledge of parts of the Assange case we would not have otherwise known. (5 links 1. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/disclosure_15_1.pdf … 2. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/disclosure_15_annex_0.pdf … 3. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Disclosure-22-Assange-CPS-correspondence-with-Swedish-Prosecuting-Authority-09-11.pdf … 4. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Disclosure-23-Assange-CPS-correspondence-with-Swedish-Prosecuting-Authority-17-11.PDF … 5. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Disclosure-24-Assange-CPS-correspondence-with-Swedish-Prosecuting-Authority-20-12.pdf … )
Her investigation into more information from US departments is ongoing and I wish her the best of luck. I eagerly await the full results of any FOIA that she receives in the public interest. She has done more than her duty and deserves credit for her tenacity in the pursuit of more information on this case. I’m grateful. My complaint is that the source materials were not made readily available or linked for readers to scan directly. If she had access to all of the annexes, why didn’t she inform the public fully? Why start a court case to get more information and lead supporters to think that the only information she received from FOIA requests is the content upon which she alone reported? It was misleading.
There is no Vendetta. I have offered objective feedback based on empirical facts and there has been push-back for me to self-censor.
In my view, Maurizi dropped the ball, should have shared the full set of documents with the wider public and taken a team approach to reporting upon them. She mishandled the Assange case information received from the UK’s Information Commissioners Office (ICO). She received over 545 pgs (Annex 15, 22 and others) but disclosed approximately 2 to 5 percent in linked pdf’s which she posted online. Over the years I have made direct, polite requests for clarification and links to the FOIA information she held but she rejected them. It was like pulling teeth. She disclosed a small fraction of the data she obtained.
My findings and reporting are good news in the Assange saga. The withholding of documents from the public, under the guise of an aggressive pursuit of documents is troubling.
It is implausible that I overlooked search results. If someone had tweeted, “ICYMI” here is a link to a some minimally redacted Assange case content” that would have been more plausible. But that never happened. I found the link to the UK government site on my own after almost a decade of research. For someone to claim it as an “ICYMI moment” or accuse me of being a poor researcher is highly suspect and implausible. That would mean Assange himself missed it. Note-worthy: The link was not posted by Wikileaks. Maurizi only posted a fraction of the documents or abbreviated versions. She merely quoted a number of emails in her articles but often did not provide links or pdf’s to the actual document. To date, (now May 5th) I have not seen Wikileaks or Maurizi post a link to the full caches of documents. Perhaps they don’t appreciate my demand that they do so. Ego aside, the documents are worthy of reposting and reposting. My audience is far smaller than theirs.
Maurizi filed requests for information, wrote articles (example) and has ongoing FOIA requests. She has, as any journalist, functioned as a monkey-in-the-middle between government and the public. She has stated that the documents she’s obtained thus far in the Assange case are but the tip of the iceberg. Given that, I still cannot understand why she has withheld, denied access and only dripped out the results of the FOIA request. Afterall the information is definitely in the public interest and she has an international team of lawyers fighting on her behalf to access more information on the Assange case in the public interest. That has been the basis of her ongoing litigation: she wants information which is in the public’s interest. She is mediating an important process.
To date, I have not had answers to any of the questions I posed to her other than to evade my questions. That is, if I got a reply from her to a question I asked, it didn’t answer the question; it evaded it or became a defensive attack on me or threat toward me. That type of response is hostile, unprofessional and divisive. It does not promote a collegial team-approach to the problem of not having access to documents in the Assange case. I have always considered myself an ally to both Hrafnsson and Maurizi. I always understood that I was on the same team as them and wanting more transparency in the Assange case. Clearly I was mistaken. It is my earnest hope that we will be able to “iron out our differences” and once again get back on the same team to free Julian Assange at this urgent point in his lifespan.
My frustration at this process rests in the urgency of saving Julian Assange but the ongoing deflections whenever I wanted clarity about the documents. In response to the question of why she did not disclose the full annexes, her response is that she is still litigating the FOIA case. That does not answer the question of possible mishandling of the information she already possessed.
As for Maurizi, I am grateful for her initiative and tenacity in the pursuit of documents pertaining to the Assange case. I stand by primary complaint of insufficient disclosure of her FOIA results and urge her to take a different approach with any new information she obtains. I am certain other journalists, Assange supporters, his family and Assange himself would agree.
Giving her the benefit of doubt, I will provide possible excuses on her behalf. Maurizi may not have published the FOIA annexes found here for a number of potential reasons. She is welcome to confirm or deny any of these:
There may have been publication ban. This would not make sense given that the UK government itself published the information.
After reviewing the entire cache of documents, she did not notice the portions which I have highlighted, nor understood the legal ramifications, and therefore published or quoted from selected documents which she deemed to be important. She felt no need to consult or crowdsource because she is highly familiar with the case, spent time with Assange in person numerous times and she did all of the legwork. If she did the legwork, she would get the lede. She chose to disclose partial emails or partial quotes because she felt competent in her custodial role in obtaining and holding the documents and would edit or publish them independent of others. She did not feel the need to share the information with a wider body of persons online or in person. (I respectfully disagree).
She may have had legal advice to prune the disclosures down to only a small fraction (less than 10 %). After much research and some crowdsourcing over the weekend I found a 26 pg. pdf not linked in a L’Espresso article so I converted it to a link here. The final page is one sentence.
She may have conversed directly with Assange (she obtained a large cache of information in 2017 prior to his embassy visits and internet access being cut off), and he may have instructed her to withhold over 90 percent of the findings. I don’t think this is the case.
It’s also possible that Maurizi wanted to break “exclusive” stories to maintain or promote her career within the media organizations who employed her. She may have felt the need to hoard the data to ensure an income. She may be planning to write a book on the Assange case. There may be some ego issues at play. Her reactivity to me when I sought clarification indicates this.
I really don’t know. I can only pose questions and invite clear and honest answers without evasion or going on the offensive. In the absence of answers, I’m left to make conclusions about both her and Hrafnsson that they may find offensive.
Questions:
Could you please repost the links to the pdf’s that you posted when you first received the information? I’ve asked you for this a few times now. It would make it easier to compare the two data sets: a. the emails you disclosed or posted in full pdfs versus b. the emails obtained through your FOIA efforts.
Did you share the full annexes of information with Assange’s legal defence team? Did you share them with Julian Assange himself or Wikileaks?
Why did you withhold the direct links? It would have been extremely helpful to have had access to these 3 years ago and definitely could have changed the course of history had they been in the public domain much sooner.
Did you share the full set of undeleted emails with law professor and torture expert Nils Melzer during your many interactions with him at rallies, by phone or email? Did you mention the key words “abeyance”, “scores” and “cases are being adjourned regularly”? Did Professor Melzer know these annexes of documents existed? I didn’t.
To date, I have not had a reply from Hrafnsson. The link to my complete article which explains the significance of the not-deleted emails has not been posted on his, nor Wikileaks, nor Maurizi’s twitter accounts. I have requested feedback but received none. It’s almost like I didn’t write it. My reach is 4 thousand followers. Wikileak’s reach is 5.5 million. Maurizi’s reach is 22 thousand.
I found evidence that proves, irrefutably, that the UK engineered a legal loophole, manipulated the ordering of EAW cases, then excluded Assange, by name. It is criminal in the truest sense of the word, but neither has reported on it or shared the links. So it is troubling.To date I have not received satisfactory input from either which would help me understand the delay in the publication of Annex 15, 22 etc.. In the absence of a constructive reply, I must draw these conclusions:
It appears that both journalists were in possession information which could have changed the course of Assange’s case. Maurizi had the information for about 3 years. Hrafnsson may have had it for the same length of time, but I am only certain he obtained the information directly from me on Feb. 1 and 2, 2020. I requested that the information be indexed and published on Wikileaks for easier research and wider engagement of journalists, lawyers and activists who have followed the case.
I challenged Hrafnsson on his handling of the FOIA annexes which he possessed on Feb. 1, 2020 (via twitter and a voicemail) and also Feb. 2, 2020 when I DM’d him the links. I spoke with him directly by phone as he was entering Belmarsh to visit face-to-face with Julian Assange. He had the opportunity to tell him about my research results. How can he justify his inaction?
I cannot trust Maurizi nor Hrafnsson until they provide a coherent justification for not making this information public at their earliest opportunity or even tweeting the full annexes of documents in their Twitter timelines. That was left to me.
The fact that I was ignored, dismissed is one thing.
The fact that the ACTUAL DOCUMENTS were ignored, buried, got NO attention, no RT’g the link, no press release is unconscionable.
I did the writing because I am a good writer and understood the legalities.
I shared link widely
Please don’t insult me by telling me that I should have waited for another journalist to write an article I was perfectly able to write. @wikileaks should have shared it among many reporters so we ALL could have written about it. Maximum impact.
On Feb. 1, I tweeted the link, requested @wikileaks index the documents (after verification) and follow publication process. If it had done that MANY bloggers, journalists and media orgs would have reported it. Britain must be held accountable. @khrafnsson must be accountable.
It should have been a TOP priority. But it wasn’t.
Take the time to read every single syllable and link of this:
It shows how the UK judiciary was weaponized against a journalist, by the UK creating a legal loophole designed to entrap, kettle, mob, torture, and decimate the reputation of Assange. It signals what will happen to other journalists. It is compulsory reading whether or not I wrote it.
Hrafnsson buried, dismissed, ignored the *facts* of the UK weblink, my article and the basic facts I uncovered.
The US overthrows governments. If it could overthrow @Wikileaks, that would be the best coup of the century.
I DM’d this link, tweeted specific pages, phoned, spoke with @khrafnsson alerting him directly: cps.gov.uk/publication/fr…
I called @khrafnsson at 8:46 am while he was about to enter Belmarsh to speak with Julian. I gave a brief explanation of my findings of “deleted” emails.
I used the words “in abeyance” and it’s possible he contacted @SMaurizi who inaccurately told him that my findings showed nothing new.
So, @khrafnsson is going to blame her for his mishandling of the info. He should have read my tweets, screenshots and done the work.
Both Hrafnsson and Maurizi are multilingual journalists. English is not their first language or mother tongue. Had they shared the full cache of documents with Assange, the Internet, his lawyers or other English speaking supporters I am certain that my findings would have been discovered and reported long before he was abducted from Ecuador’s embassy, had everything stolen and then detained in a maximum security prison, infested with COVID19.
I stand by my opinion that @khrafnsson must resign. Failing that, Wikileaks board of directors (or superiors) must conduct an investigation, follow fair human resources protocols, give him an opportunity to defend his actions or inaction, then decide on his ability to fulfil the role of Editor in Chief. The priority must be to free Assange even in the midst of a human resources dispute.
As a publisher of last resort, I would assume that Wikileaks was not under any D-notice or publication ban with respect to these annexes and even if it were, it would publish it in order to advance his defence against US extradition. Publish or perish and all that.
There may be a cover-up. It cannot be ruled out without clear answers.
There may be incompetence. Stress can be a factor in a person’s competence. If English is a second or third language, it may have been a barrier to understanding the significance of the findings.
This Crisis of Faith in @khrafnsson is better to happen now than after Assange dies. That is, if Assange survives Belmarsh and US Extradition and Hrafnsson is in charge of Wikileaks, the crisis of faith is better sooner than later.
It’s never a good time to hold people in power to account.
But one has to. Don’t shoot the messenger. Uncover the information and share it virally.
There may be an unfolding tragedy involving a coup of Wikileaks from the inside, orchestrated by US and UK intelligence operatives (Possible informant role to US/UK). It happens in foreign countries, political parties and corporations. It is not hyperbole to interrogate that as a possible outcome. It is not a conspiracy theory to at least put that plotline under the microscope. It cannot be ruled out or disregarded.
It is likely that the US and perhaps other governments are coercing Wikileaks supporters or journalistic allies in order to sabotage the mission and work it does.
The best case scenario is that Hrafnsson did not have any intent to harm Assange but was overwhelmed, incompetent, managing a personal crisis which interfered with his ability to verify the documents or complete a fact chec of the the information I drew to his attention. It was poor judgement. An oversight. Lack of confidence. The worst case scenario is he knowingly or unknowingly cooperated in a plan to take down Wikileaks and Assange. That he is under threat or being coerced into colluding with US interests to have Assange delivered to US soil. It’s possible that he would be acting out of protectiveness for his family and loved ones as well as perhaps earning immunity from prosecution himself in exchange for his cooperation.
I will conclude this post with a few screenshots and tweets which verify my efforts to get explanations on the chain of custody and public access to crucial Assange case documents.
Sharing is caring:
Whatever the reasons, the fact that Wikileaks has not published the link of Assange case documents is a betrayal of Assange who is caged and dying. It is a betrayal. It is unnecessary censorship that endangers Assange who opposes unnecessary censorship. It has created a crisis of faith in leadership. I don’t know if I can trust Hrafnsson at the helm of Wikileaks. Not now. Not if Assange dies.
Could an earlier full release of the 545 pgs. of documents and broad strategy of media partnership spared Assange of psychological torture, mobbing and possible US extradition? I believe so. Therefore, despite my willingness to walk my position backwards to be less confrontational, I must stand by my call for Kristinn Hrafnsson to resign as Editor in Chief of Wikileaks on the basis if this oversight or betrayal. It’s about non-confidence.
The impossibility of trusting him. His potential complicity in Assange’s ongoing torture.
I would still like the documents to be archived, indexed and searchable. It would be embarassing if a media organization, other than Wikileaks, took the initiative to do this. Dead or alive, Assange deserves our ongoing attention to the perversions of justice to which he has been subjected.
Conclusion:
If Assange could speak out about this situation what might he say?
“This Could Have Been Prevented”
Stefania, why didn’t you give me all the documents immediately after receiving them? Why didn’t you crowdsource them, or made them available to all of my supporters and lawyers? You dropped the ball and I am verklempt. I don’t believe you are part of the mafia powers against me, though others do. Why aren’t you continuing your reporting on my case with specific references to the full set of emails we thought were deleted? It’s been over 3 years now. Why are you threatening to sue a reporter who is trying to inform the public about UK corruption in my case and challenging the way you withheld the bulk of the FOIA results? Why are you trying to minimise their significance?
Kristinn, Why didn’t you publish these documents in full, with indexing, a press release and interviews for wider public attention? You have a huge platform via Wikileaks and you have squandered it. You saw me in Belmarsh last Feb. 2nd right after Jude called you to tell you about her explosive research findings. Why haven’t you defended me with all of your might, partnered with other journalists and lawyers or even tweeted the links? You are the Editor-in-Chief of a free speech/free press, anti-censorship media organisation so why are you trying to vilify a reporter who is trying to inform the public about UK corruption in my case?
To both of you: Do you realize that since August 2017 I have endured increasingly harsh torture, been disconnected from the internet and my lawyers, I have lost my public voice, my name has been dragged through the mud in media accounts, I was arrested, robbed of my belongings, prevented from marrying Stella or being a dad for Gabriel and Max, been denied contact with my family, exposed to a killer virus, humiliated in court, dragged out of the embassy, had my Ecuadorean citizenship and asylum revoked and am now facing the press freedom fight of the century but am unable to defend myself. How could you have buried the very documents that could have changed all of this or prevented it from happening to me? It is either a gross oversight or a bitter betrayal. You owe me explanations. You owe my family, lawyers and global supporters an explanation.
I am now in Belmarsh prison unable to convey my anger or disappointment in your lack of publication of these emails or reporting about them. If I die today, you are culpable in different degrees. You could have done something but you did not. I may not survive the damage your oversight or betrayal has caused.
I was arrested on a ruse that I breached bail then further arrested on behalf of a formidable foe, the United States. I am in the custody of the US because you did not publish the full set of documents which could have saved me.
I was put in the equivalent of a fish tank in a court room as a prisoner in Category A prison, strip searched, had my documents confiscated, prevented in court room dynamics and repeatedly insulted by UK judges. Legal defence funds have been squandered because if these documents were widely published, in full with indexing, with comprehensive reporting, press releases, media interviews and crowdsourced, I would not be here in Belmarsh. This is a nightmare.
Court appearances have been another form of torture for me. They have given Britain, my current captors, the stage to gaslight, deride and obstruct justice. They have provided narrative cover to justify the stonewalling of Nils Melzer who came to evaluate me a year ago. I was dehumanized and subjugated unnecessarily.
Almost all of my resources have been drained: financially, emotionally, legally and access to my lawyers has been obstructed. Any person who had access or possession of the FOIA annexes concerning me but did not make that information public is complicit in my torture, arbitrary detention and possibly my death. Failure to publish this information may lead to US extradition, which amounts to a death sentence any way you slice it.
Your oversight, incompetence, or cooperation in a cover-up or role as an informant to my adversaries is not just a betrayal of me, but Stella, John, Christine, my children, friends, colleagues, Nils, the United Nations and global supporters who have fought for my freedom.
I am at death’s door. I’ve gone through hell and continue to go through hell every second of every day. What prompted you to tuck the information into an abyss or into the pouch of a marsupial out of scrutiny? Silence is complicity. Wikileaks has always had a policy of disclosing full documents with the least amount of redactions within a context of harm minimisation. Your refusal to amplify the full documents or the importance of the previously unreported findings has maximised the harm done against me and put me on the precipice of being handed over to my enemy.
Kristinn, you must resign from Wikileaks. There is absolutely no excuse for your passivity. Let your conscience and integrity guide you to do the right thing.
Stefania, thank you for the work you conducted to get these emails keep up the fight for more information on my case. Going forward use crowdsourcing, wide publication of documents you obtain and your media platform to save my life and save the future of journalism. You mishandled the information but I’m confident you will do better going forward. Keep writing more articles based on your FOIA results from 3 years ago. If you refuse to amplify the full documents which demonstrate prima facie UK corruption, what else are you sitting on from the Wikileaks dropbox? Are you censoring other massive news? Where is your editorial judgement?
So much suffering could have been prevented. I can hear Assange’s voice saying this over and over and over again: “This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
“This could have been prevented.”
(more flashbacks)
“This could have been prevented.”
(more flashbacks and more anxiety)
Yes, Julian Assange. This could have been prevented. I demand transparency and clear answers from Hrafnsson and Maurizi.
“One person’s trash is another person’s treasure”
It appears that Hrafnsson and Maurizi have relegated the FOIA documents to the dustbin, hoping no one would notice important facts contained therein. My articles explaining the Assange Exclusion Clause are worth recyling and wider reporting.
How dare I confront Hrafnsson for his inaction. How dare I challenge Maurizi for her partial drips, selective reporting and shunning of more substantial facts I uncovered. How dare I challenge their integrity. How dare I question their sloppiness, incompetence, lack of courage or potential cooperation in the US prosecution and persecution of Assange or the erosion of Wikileaks legacy. These colleagues of Assange are the possibly the future leadership of Wikileaks. How dare I speak out.
If the Editor in Chief is ignoring substantial, primary source documents that were supposedly scrubbed by the UK government then either I am making a mountain out of a molehill, or the information is so explosive that even Wikileaks is afraid to publish it. Streisand Effect?
Don’t shoot the messenger. Full docs or it didn’t happen. The public needs to be aware of the Assange Exclusion Clause. The documents need wider public attention. My pointed question to Hrafnsson and Maurizi is captioned in the tweet below.
Let’s get to work, write some blogs, press releases, do interviews and retweet articles that shine a light on facts that could free Assange. Does Streisand still have her magical effect?
Post scripts:
I am revising this article after I found the Assange tweet of Nov. 11, 2017 which appears to confirm that he did not have the full cache of supposedly deleted emails.
For people who might tell me that posting an update to this article within one month of Assange’s scheduled US extradition hearing is “bad timing”… consider this: I . HAVE. BEEN. CALLING. ATTENTION. TO. THIS. SINCE. FEB 1, 2020 AND BEEN GASLIT EVER SINCE. I have not received a response from Hrafnsson and the responses from Maurizi do not address my specific criticisms.
The salient point is this: If Hrafnsson, Maurizi and Wikileaks had given coverage of the full documents and possibly my analysis, then ASSANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN FREED BACK IN FEBRUARY, EVEN BEFORE “SEASON 1" of the Assange US Extradition hearing on Feb. 24th, 2020. That was over 6 months ago. PRE-COVID. I am using Feb 1, 2020 as my benchmark for communications directly with Hrafnsson regarding my findings.
Worse, had Maurizi shared full documents with Assange in August 2017, a lot of torture, privacy raids and illegal spying could have been prevented. Assange would certainly not be in custody and the United Nations would have had irrefutable evidence that Assange is/was/will be arbitrarily detained. Phillip Hammond would have no basis for GaslightingAssange. In fact the past 3 years of GaslightingAssange could have been mitigated or reversed.
Don’t blame me for the timing. The resistance to public coverage and amplification of the findings is the cause of the bad timing, not me.
The best way to stop me from updating this article is to publish the documents on Wikileaks, with indexing and explanatory articles.
Pick a side. Are you going to aid and abet the UK /US “Assange Policy” and participate in the ongoing GaslightingAssange or will you educate the public about the historic injustices of the case?
Despite the constant gaslighting, I will persist in challenging the decisions to publish or withhold documents, cover the Assange Exclusion Clause or not, retweet links or not. That which you resists, persists. So I will persist. It’s not “obsession”, it is an adherence to the truth and the demand for Assange’s freedom, the collapse of US prosecution and full compensation for his decade of suffering.
FreeAssange