Interview with Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks
"US It has created a unilateral universal jurisdiction"
Under the Congress of Universal Justice Garzón Foundation, he talked about the immigration crisis and the absence of laws and institutions of human rights in the global legal architecture that emerged from 9-11.
By Santiago O'Donnell
Julian Assange has spent three years, two months, three weeks, one day, 21 hours and several minutes exile in a small apartment which occupies part of the Embassy of Ecuador in London, when it appears on the big screen this city Teatro Cervantes to answer questions via videoconference. He looks more tired, weaker, hit a year ago, when excited with the possibility of leaving his prison before the end of the Obama administration. But it remains active. His site, Wikileaks still leaking new documents. In so far this year has posted a military plan for the European Union to sink boats of refugees before they leave Africa, an instructional NSA for US spies on how to avoid detection in European airports, secret clauses two megatratados US trade talks with Europe and the Pacific Rim and the confessions of a crew engineer British nuclear submarines warning of impending catastrophe because the security protocols are not respected. Also, this week came out in Britain Assange's new book, The Wikileaks files on the impact that has had the leak site in different corners of the world. His lawyer Baltazar Garzon invited to participate in the Congress of Universal Justice this week was held in the Teatro Cervantes in this city, with Garzón listening intently from the stage, Assange spoke with Pagina / 12 double impact of the war on terror and the technological revolution have had on individual liberties in general and freedom of expression in particular.
I'd like to ask about the child's photo Aylan Kurdi that shook the world. What does the immigration crisis, the rise of anti-immigrant parties in Europe and its counterpart in the United States with the candidacy of Donald Trump? How all this relates to your own situation of asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in Britain?
There was a major change in migration flows to Europe in the last ten years. We have published some papers on it. In fact the document published on the European Union plan to destroy boats coming from Libya before leaving ports shows a very interesting militarization of the European Union. I know this is a lecture on Universal Justice, but I must say that the right to universal protection invoked by many human rights lawyers has been used as an excuse in recent years to bomb Serbia in Belgrade, bomb Tripoli and introduce weapons significant in Libya and more recently destabilize Syria to the point where we now see the emergence of the Islamic State, which is pushing these refugees causing a humanitarian catastrophe. This catastrophe is caused, in terms of intelligence and geopolitical level, the various factions and propagandists of the European intelligence services, who always need to justify their budgets and want to pursue their geopolitical knock out Syria ambitions, to make Israel to consolidate its position in the Golan Heights, to marginalize Hezbollah, and to get into the navel of Iran to influence key decisions about its energy program and its future.
As for the legal aspects of my situation, there is something interesting and has to do with the right to asylum. In the debate in Europe on how to stem the flow of refugees, there are two perspectives. Is the conservative perspective, it is to eliminate the flow completely. And there is the humanitarian perspective, which is that we must reduce the number of drowning. The conservative approach has led to the emergence, particularly in Sweden and Finland, anti-immigrant far-right parties. In Sweden are divided but is growing much anti-immigrant party the Democrats and anti-immigrant party in Finland party is part of the government coalition. And from the perspective huamanitaria we say we do not want people drown as that famous Syrian child, then we will process asylum claims in our embassies in the southern Mediterranean, in Libya and elsewhere, to give people direct access asylum, without having to risk their lives so that their rights are recognized, and to facilitate their asylum within the European Union. But Sweden, which is me, that I have held for more than five years without presenting a single charge against me is now in an awkward situation. Because even though there are no records that have done that (process orders asylum in foreign embassies) now knows that this process exists, which is an accepted international practice and that Ecuador has the right to do so (me). Moreover other humanitarian items within Sweden are saying that to meet the quota of refugees proposed by the European Union, should process asylum claims in northern Africa. The UK faces the same dilemma. If processed for asylum in embassies, legitimizes the argument Ecuador is legal practice to decide on asylum for a person, not just when it comes to a territory but when you are in a jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction includes the embassies and ships of war. To British justice I am neither arrested nor asylum, does not accept a pass so you can get to Ecuador.
'And about Trump?
'I looked at him from the following perspective. I followed Hillary Clinton for years, you know that I have a personal issue with Hillary because she was Secretary of State when we published the diplomatic cables and more recently emails refused to disclose. And she is much more warlike than Obama. What happened in Libya, the destruction of that country and the collapse of its state, was above all a war of Hillary. Hillary was behind everything. Pentagon generals opposed Hillary intervene but was pushed to bomb. So now comes in Donald Trump's even more warrior than Hillary. So whoever wins will be even more aggressive than Obama. The Trump phenomenon is interesting. Right now there is not a massive flood of Latin Americans wanting to enter the United States. So it is interesting to see where does this phenomenon. Trump is appealing at the same grotesque nationalism it can be seen in discussions on refugees in Australia and Europe. The issue of migrants was not really on the agenda significantly until Donald Trump started lifting. The rest of the Republican Party has more decency and more willing to like the voters of Hispanic roots.
By going to the theme of this conference, the doctrine of universal justice, the case seems to be the opposite of what is being discussed here. Because while Dr. Garzon and other proponents of the doctrine seeking to create a legal architecture which is above the legal systems of each country, if a country, the United States, seek to impose their own legal architecture over the international system. And seeking to judge you, who is granted asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in Britain, through an order from the Swedish justice for questioning in Sweden so we can extradite him to the US from Sweden, so you can be tried for terrorism. At the same time, you and WikiLeaks have complained that the United States seeks to expand its legal jurisdiction over much of the rest of the world through trade agreements with whole regions such as Europe and the Pacific Rim and global reach through its Internet servers.
As a result of having more than 400 military bases in over 120 countries around the world the United States is the world's largest military empire. Therefore it has great influence in many countries. But as we speak formal universal jurisdiction in this Congress, the US has been doing something else, it has created a unilateral universal jurisdiction, which only applies from the United States to other countries, and that's my case. In the past five years the United States has subjected me to a very aggressive investigation of Grand Jury investigation remains open, which I am accused of espionage, computer hacking, destruction of public documents and conspiracy. But I'm not American. WikiLeaks is not registered in the United States. We do not publish in the United States and have not published in the United States during the period covered by our judicial investigation. The US government claims for itself universal jurisdiction in any subject having to do with the US government. Then they claim that if someone publishes information related to national defense, they have jurisdiction, even if the documents are not government reached with the government referring or relating to US defense apparatus. Then US demands full universal jurisdiction and therefore was able to follow this case against me and my organization so long, to the point that research is the longest in American history against a publication. It is also the largest legal case that led the Pentagon, which has been admitted a few months ago by the prosecutor who conducts an aspect of the case that has to do with Chelsea Manning, my alleged co-conspirator who was sentenced 35 years in a military prison. But it's not just about me or WikiLeaks. The United States has done the same with many other publications it considers a threat, when it considers that the political cost of pursuing them is less than the benefits. Then the Islamists who have published articles in favor of the Taliban, although they were not directly linked to terrorism, were charged to give ideological support for the right to resist US troops invaded Afghanistan.
The center of the US attempt to impose its jurisdiction on other countries is in Alexandria, Virginia, an elegant suburb of Washington DC There the grand jury meets once a month to advance the case against Wikileaks. They've been five years doing that. Alexandria has the highest density of government employees across the country, then the jurors are chosen from among employees of the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, Air Force, National Security Agency and other state agencies, all based near the town. So how do they justify their jurisdiction over my case? Well, turn to a number of legal rinses to ensure that a grand jury national security take the case. One example is the recent case of CIA mole (Jeffrey) Sterling, the man who allegedly leaked information to a journalist from the New York Times (James Risen) on a program of the agency (Operation Merlin). The did not live in Virginia, lived in another state. Then the US government commissioned a book Amazon shipping the reporter from the New York Times had written, which contained information about the CIA Sterling, to be sent to an address in Alexandria. When the book came to Alexandria the government claimed that the shipment was a mail fraud because Sterling had signed a contract saying he would not reveal any information from the CIA. Then they use all kinds of tricks to bring cases there. So we have people of 67 different nationalities being tried in Alexandria. It is the explicit policy of tax of Alexandria jurisdiction try to win one way or another, with respect to the greatest possible number of countries and to publicly boast of being able to get to 67 countries within its jurisdiction. There is the case of Kim Dotcom, Megaupload manager, who did not want the record because people up to music to your site. Who's up? Kim Dotcom was not, but that hardly mattered to the authorities and did the same with many other cases of alleged piracy in different countries.
And Kim Dotcom is in New Zealand.
Yes, he is in New Zealand, fighting to avoid being extradited. Lives and works in New Zealand, the site is registered in Hong Kong. has nothing to do with the United States and less with Virginia except that the owners of the copyright, as Universal, are based in the United States.
Here it has been argued that the new generation of offenses punishable by universal justice should include environmental crimes that produce disasters and economic offenses linked to crimes against humanity. Do you think that this list should be added cybercrimes committed by countries, corporations or individuals?
-The Topic interests me because WikiLeaks has been attacked by state actors, has been hacking, but I wonder whether it is a war crime because we have a strong infrastructure that is damaged and sometimes destroyed by these actors. It is an interesting question but a legal question, it seems to me that is a political question. If you're all for all the people you end up being nothing to anyone. Diluís the concept to the point where it ceases to be effective. With this idea you can get to a point in the United Nations and countries. The concept of universal justice can collapse if you use it as a defense for all human rights violations.
I'd like to ask you a couple of questions related to freedom of expression. Through diplomatic documents on Argentina that you gave me from the place of his house arrest in London four years ago I learned how thin is the line between diplomacy and espionage. Following the event also I learned how thin is the line between journalism and terrorism. My first question is this: the so-called war against terrorism, the war against supranational organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State already has fourteen. What has been its impact on freedom of expression? My second question is how it has affected freedom of expression technological revolution we are living.
Something very serious has happened here in the UK in recent days because Britain was first launched drone attacks in Syria. And these attacks are targeted assassinations. They have been used against its own citizens as a result of these attacks two or three British citizens have been killed. There is now a blacklist of five British citizens to be killed. It is argued that these murders are justified under the law because these citizens participate in a variety of plots against Britain. But the reality is more interesting. You may participate in the Islamic state with the idea of carrying out terrorist attacks in the UK, but not in the UK. They are in Syria and anyone who wants to project force on a country to reach that country to do so. Now if you encourage people through the internet, or if involved in a conspiracy against the United Kingdom over the Internet, do it with people in the UK, or people who could go to the UK. People who are not in the UK can be stopped at the border and the people inside can be arrested as long as he gets to intercept your communications. But if you kill the communication is interrupted, as the agents of the Islamic State in the UK remain undetected. Then the justification for police level is quite weak to kill people in Syria who might be willing to conspire to do something in the UK. If there is a plot want to identify and arrest the people involved. Like to allow the coordinator to continue communicating to identify who are the ones who commit terrorism act. The British intelligence service GCHQ, is very advanced, the most advanced in the world, and control all communications, with few exceptions, communications coming out of the UK and should be able to use that to thwart the plots. Either way using a secret list of murders, no trial, no way to know if one is listed. It is an example how the policy of targeted killings of Barack Obama has expanded to the UK, which is worrying because soon will wishlist New Zealand, Australia yours. Another disturbing revelation this week is that Sweden has a representative on the committee of targeted killings in the United States, along with Germany. Germany says US pressured him to join the committee to cover geopolitically, but at the same time is very concerned about the legality of what is being done. Instead Sweden so far seems to be happy with their participation.
I should also note that the International Criminal Court in theory is a very important instrument, but to the universal jurisdiction for something that resembles it. In my last book I came out yesterday (The WikiLeaks files) have a whole chapter on how the United States has sought to marginalize and undermine the International Criminal Court. Basically what happened is that Bill Clinton had accepted with reservations form part of the ICC, to have some control over the court, tried to sell the idea to his security council but failed, and when he arrived W. Bush United States ICC was. At that time the United States began a strong campaign against the CPI, trying to close deal with a variety of countries, so-called agreements of Chapter 97, that every country could convince the United States, signed an agreement guaranteeing that never send yet US citizens to the ICC. Through incentives and sanctions the United States managed a number of countries sign these secret agreements Article 97. When Barack Obama came, the policy was more subtle but continued in the same direction. The result is what we see today: only citizens of African countries have been tried by the ICC. Now we see that Palestine has joined the ICC despite a strong campaign that does not happen. The interesting thing is that the campaign was so strong, demonstrating a real fear of ICC. That means that even the remote threat of prosecution at the ICC brings an extraordinary effort to eliminate that possibility. The threat of being judged even if it is remote, change behavior and it is important to learn to value universal jurisdiction.
'And with regard to freedom of expression?
Some of our research has had legal consequences. we have shown war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, in relation to torture, the killing of civilians but the United States government did not investigate any of these cases, investigated the source of information and that source was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Similarly, with the former agent John Kiriakou leaked information that waterboarding in interrogations of the CIA, was tried and spent two years in prison. Now he is free again, but the only person who was tried, nobody was judged by what he denounced.
Wikileaks, in recent months has been reporting and publishing information on two treaties being negotiated secretly almost worldwide: the TTP (Strategic Agreement Trans-Pacific Economic Cooperation) and the TPIP (Association of the Transatlantic Trade and couple Investment.
-United States has decided to leave the World Trade Organization as an effective tool to regulate international financial exchanges. So it is getting out, creating different mechanisms and you are doing it at high speed to encircle China geopolitically and legally with a new trade bloc, a new legal block. That is building block is the most significant since the creation of the European Union geopolitical event. Fifty-two countries representing two-thirds of global GDP, 2.6 billion people and a new legal system that does not eliminate the existing systems but that is very intense and aggressive covering the main topics of the economy, property, internet , corporate structures, intrusive covering topics of property rights for corporations, transportation. But something is not covered and is the idea of human rights. Follow economic criteria such as the European Union, but without its Enlightenment values. No envisages Court of Human Rights and the European Union. It is no secret that we have obtained and published some chapters. At the geopolitical level it is the most important thing that is happening now is the broadest more ambitious and more comprehensive legal relations and economic restructuring that has ever been attempted. This is an interesting event, which may offer some opportunities, if you can gather enough political strength to derail some of these agreements unless the system incorporating the appropriate human rights instruments.
Any message for Argentina?
More than anything I order. I would much rather be in Argentina. I've heard good things about your country. The ambassador in London, Alicia Castro, expressed strong support and I want to thank Argentina for that support. Argentines already know how difficult and misleading they can be and are the British in a negotiation, and what they do with the law. Argentina acts from the legal standpoint, geopolitical and development in Latin America is very important, integration and independence are important not only for Argentina, also for many people living in Europe, also for WikiLeaks and me. My basic policy philosophy is that when a group of people or a nation has no bargaining power, then there is no freedom of choice, which leads to unfair situations. What more honest world is not electoral politics. What makes the world more honest, which makes people more honest, it is that you can go the other way, that you can choose another. In terms of electoral politics, able to choose between one or the other party. At the national level is the ability to say, "if the United States is misbehaving in some aspect, I have the possibility of negotiating with China, or Europe or any other country." This is very important. There has been an explosion of freedom of expression and there have been many different writings on what the world is and what it can be in globalization, where publications need not be tied to a single public, why be subjected to a only the police department that touched their jurisdiction, they can compare and choose. They can choose which they prefer state education. This interactive dance between states, jurisdictions and power groups is allowing people who have been harmed can choose another place to stay. So it works the law of supply and demand and that freedom is what makes the world more honest, beyond what the political system or the legal system you have to deal with.
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 
