A panel of journalists who covered the Assange case discuss the twists and turns in the drama leading to his release on Monday, with host Richard Medhurst.
British journalist Richard Medhurst invited Taylor Hudak of acTVism Munich, Mohamed Elmaazi of Defence Truth, Kevin Gosztola of The Dissenter, independent journalist Tareq Haddad of Improve the News, plus Cathy Vogan and Joe Lauria of Consortium News to discuss the myriad complex issues of the Assange saga.
Please Donate to the
Spring Fund Drive!
Response through first half of video:
It took some time but I came to agree that the plea deal was a victory for Assange, that he won. When the possibility was suggested a month back, I was incredulous that Julian would plead guilty to doing anything wrong–because he had done nothing wrong. It had seemed to me earlier through the years that he wanted to make a principled stand on his case, that he somewhat naively believed justice was possible, and that otherwise he would have contrived to escape the Embassy, which I believed he could have arranged.
I then thought, about the time of Joe’s article (I broke the law but the law was wrong) that Julian had seen, perhaps through the long reading he gave to the plea agreement, that he could agree and sign based on the transparent bias and Orwellian language of the plea bargain itself and slip away. That is, that wherever he appeared to cooperate with the plea bargain it was in effect his putting invisible quotation marks around his “agreement.” He “agreed” on the factuality of what the plea bargain stated knowing full well (and the agreement is not written well as it is) that the language used is heavily ironical and false given anyone who has followed the case carefully.
But he must be careful in the specifics of THIS case, not on his possible further activity with Wikileaks, as with undertaking a similar project to accept and publish whistleblower materials. Obviously, sanity would indicate not to rush into this given the Pompeo Factor on his safety. Further, the plea agreement also states but is not precisely clear that he must not talk negatively about this case just now closed. That was suggested at the Thursday news conference by Stella, speaking of his need for time to recover from his ordeal. She, on the other hand, could say, in effect, don’t forget what happened–and pursue it further.
As to the unpublished material I think this is political apology of a sort from whoever authorized this plea deal, a kind of “this will indeed shut him up on what we’ve accused him of all these years,” although the writing is full of holes at this point on forcing this outcome, as the panel pointed out. The attempt at a “he is now shut up message” is an important aspect of the plea deal–as its primary objective–especially given the embarrassment of reducing the sentence from 175 year/execution to time served.
Re the second half:
Of many key concerns as expressed in this discussion, this one stands out for me: exposing the “real criminality in this case”–emphasize the word REAL. The discussion also points to this problem of being REAL as it extends beyond the case to the corruption of governmental powers when they are incapable, or they are intentionally avoiding morality and the public good/the public interest. What we see as with Gaza in parallel is groups in power who abandon moral principle and truthfulness to serve their individual power situation. And this is historically human through the centuries. So, this then in my view is the key consideration of this “pivotal moment” as to whether we can evolve toward the greater good and avoid extinction via human weakness, and instead create mechanisms to control self-interest and hysterical behavior.
This problem of whether we can evolve is very complicated but essential to considering any “ripple effect” or advance progress from what has happened to Julian, and what BTW happened to Galileo centuries ago when he became very unpopular for his heliocentric views of the solar system, in which the earth is a planet circling a sun, not the center of the universe around which everything else revolved. Progress and scientific analysis proceed slowly, according to history. Decades of open and “lawful” segregation in the US passed until a revolt in the 1960’s. Will there be recognition of the falsity and the game being played in the Assange case? I would think probably not in a public at the mercy of corporate narrative structures who manipulate for and encourage self-indulgent behaviors. This factor may also explain why progress toward greater awareness and the fight for a just and proper respect for the truth is so slow and not widely enough honored.
Thank you so much for this thorough and true account of Julian Assange and the media! What a sad and shameful media is exposed. I have followed this case from the beginning and actually have prayed for years that justice would be done and Julian Assange would be set free! It is people like you who we all have to thank!
The guiding principle of ruling elites was, and still is: when change threatens to rule, then rules are changed. — Michael Parenti
my thanks to all of you for this instructive review and
for all your work that contributed to julian assange’s release.
let’s now hope that at least some MSM take this as a wake-up call
to do much better than they did before, instructing the general public
instead of obstructing justice, peace and freedom for all – not just
for the reckless, careless, super-selfish o.1 percent …
Assange will not be free until he has his voice back and is again able to speak directly.
He was able to speak with Albanese – who was part of the Gillard government that persecuted Assange in the first place – he is able to make at least a short video for all the millions of supporters around the world who have spent countless hours and dollars over the last 14 years tirelessly campaigning, protesting, postering, lobbying politicians and so much more to fight for his freedom.
All of that effort was for nothing if Julian still has no direct public voice.