AUDIO TRANSCRIPT - 'John Pilger on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange & Jeremy Corbyn' - Radio NZ National

AUDIO TRANSCRIPT  [For quotation purposes, confirm audio] Title:  John Pilger on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange & Jeremy Corbyn "John Pilger is an Australian born journalist and film-maker who has twice won Britain's Journalist of the Year award." Originally aired on Sunday Morning, Sunday 23 August 2015 PROGRAM LINK | http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/201767629/john-pilger-on-wikileaks,-julian-assange-and-jeremy-corbyn DIRECT LINK AUDIO | http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201767629 ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National For 3 years, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, has sought asylum within the Ecuadorian embassy, London, at a cost of millions of pounds. He has been facing sexual assault allegations, which actually expired this past week, although he can still face charges on a rape allegation for a further 5 years. John Pilger is an Australian-born journalist & film-maker. He's twice won Britain's Journalist of the Year Award. And he says it's been an unrelenting campaign by Sweden and the US to deny Julian Assange justice and, of course, his freedom. John Pilger is in no doubt about the impact that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks has on society. John Pilger Investigative Journalist I think it's had a huge impact on both society and on journalism. I mean, the best of journalism, in my experience, always relied on what we called 'whistleblowers.' People from inside who can tell us the things that vested interests and governments don't want us to know; and I think they've done that with such a dimension that we now have quite a different standard of investigative journalism, now, to reach. And as far as society is concerned, I think they've told people what so many people — millions of people — suspected anyway: that their governments weren't telling them the truth; and that vested interests weren't telling them the truth; that they were being deceived; that democracy wasn't working properly; that there wasn't the kind of accountability that they suspected. WikiLeaks' contribution to that, I think, has been quite extraordinary. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National It's been compared, hasn't it, to Daniel Ellsberg's revelation of the Pentagon Papers (US war related secrets of 1971). Do you think that's a fair or valid comparison? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Yes, it is. Absolutely. I know Dan Ellsberg and I've talked to him about it and he makes that comparison. That he's very much a supporter of WikiLeaks now. And Ellsberg — what Ellsberg released (and this was a whistleblower from within the system), he — the Pentagon Papers actually told the truth about the Vietnam war. It told the truth — the kind of official truth that people didn't know. They were official documents, and they really had an extraordinary impact then on public opinion. They supported that all-truth that information is power. People then had information. Now, what people do with information is up to them. But to be able to get it — as they got it through Ellsberg, and they got it through WikiLeaks, and they got it through Chelsea Manning, and they got it through numerous other very courageous whistleblowers. That's very important, and it's a lesson for us journalists. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National The nature of the whilsteblower. Let me ask you this, then, John. Daniel Ellsberg over 40 years ago, Julian Assange now — to some, you know, to many he's a hereo (people like Yoko Ono & Ken Loach have visited him at the Ecuadorian embassy) — but what was the - what did people think of Daniel Ellsberg at the time, because there's been quite a level of vitriol to Julian Assange. How was Daniel Ellsberg treated by the public and by the establishment. John Pilger Investigative Journalist I think Ellsberg was also, really, was subjected to a certain level of vitriol. Usually, whistleblowers are. I remember Ellsberg actually being called a traitor. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National [Interjects] Really? John Pilger Investigative Journalist — and, indeed, he won his court actions, which were really based on that broad allegation that he'd committed some form of treason. So, you know, his character was called into question and so on, in a different way from the attacks on Julian Assange. Another great whistleblower — long forgotten — who's now the subject of a movie called, interestingly, 'Shoot the Messenger,' whose name is Gary Webb:   Gary Webb disclosed, in the United States, that — how the CIA was involved in drug trafficking into the United States. Now, Gary Webb's greatest enemies were the rest of media, who hadn't got the story and attacked him. Something similar has happened with Julian Assange. It's certainly muddied by the fact that he was caught in a situation in Sweden, which those who were his enemies, anyway, were able to exploit. And — but, my understanding (and I've known Assange for quite some time and I followed this case very quickly) is, that the amount of vitriol comes down to the degree of truth-telling: truth-telling about great power. There is — and I've found this in my career — there is a real ruthlessness in great power:   be it in governments, big corporations, vested interests — particularly in very, very powerful governments.  There is a ruthlessness in their response, if you expose what they are doing, and if it's something they don't want the public to know about. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National And you've experienced it yourself? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Yes, I have, most certainly, in a lot of the work I've done right throughout south-east Asia and in investigative work in the UK. For example, I had a lot to do with revealing the thalidomide — the extent that thalidomide, the drug, was was damaging children. I found myself subjected to all kinds of abuse and smear. Smear. Smear is probably an investigative journalist's greatest enemy. There was a very interesting document that WikiLeaks got hold of in 2008 which foretold everything — [laughs] almost everything - that has happened to Julian Assange. It said that (and I paraphrase it) - that if - that, because WikiLeaks was revealing so many of these truths, the only way to deal with it was to discredit it, and to discredit Assange. To smear, in other words. I mean, it really spells it out, in very plain English, that there's going to be a campaign of discrediting against anyone like Assange who dares to tell the public the kinds of secrets that it needs to know, that it's prevented from knowing. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National Well, in fact, you say on Julian Assange — you write that in Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury spent 5 years attempting to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. Can you explain a little bit for us, what do you mean by that? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Well, yes. I mean, that's, that's — they've admitted that now. There is, in Virginia, which — the grand jury in the United States— The grand juries draw from the area in which they sit. Now this area [laughs] has in it the US Defence Department, the Pentagon, the CIA, and all the great institutions of American power, so that determines, really, the character of the grand jury. And the grand jury can then issue indictments. Now, this grand jury has been sitting in secret, now, for several years, and the problem it faces in trying to bring a charge against Assange and WikiLeaks is that the constitution (the US constitution), says very clearly that whistleblowers — truth-tellers — are protected it (by the Constitution) and, ironically, it was President Obama (a professor of constitutional law) who said, very early in his presidency, that whilstleblowers had the protection of the constitution. Now, I say 'ironically,' because more whistleblowers have been prosecuted under Obama than during all the presidents of the past. So, this grand jury has an uphill task, and the one charge it seems that it might be able to come up with is a First World War espionage charge, which was really directed at conscientious objectors during the First World War, all those years ago: a century ago. That's all it can find. The problem there is that Julian Assange isn't an American. That never seams to bother American courts that people — there are some people in the world who are not Americans. So, it's a difficult thing. But there's no question that what the documents show — the FBI has something like a 50,000 page file on him — what all these documents that have come out have shown, and what they've virtually admitted: that the moment Assange sets out the door of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, in some way — in some way — the United States (with help from its so-called allies) will get its hands on Julian Assange. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National And is that why the 24 hour around the clock police cordon? There are police appearing — John Pilger Investigative Journalist Well, no because [laughs] — they don't prevent people going in, but Assange isn't going anywhere. All that is, this 24-hour cordon, it's theatrical. It's a show of force by the state. It's the British government saying — and the Metropolitan Police in London — saying: Well, we're not having this. How dare this man go and seek political refuge and be granted it by another government. It's pointless — Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National [Interjects] John — John Pilger Investigative Journalist — one policeman outside the door is more than enough because, as everybody knows, Assange isn't going anywhere. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National I'm speaking with Julian As— John Pilger. And there are those who listen to this, too, who will say that there — these, you know, these charges — these allegations — they— John Pilger Investigative Journalist [Interjects] You've got to be careful with that. That's a very common slip. And I understand you make it.  There— Assange has been — The disgrace about all of this is this man has not been charged with anything.  What's more, that the original prosecutor in this case in Sweden, threw it out — threw allegations out — and the second prosecutor, who has perused him, allowed him to leave Sweden, and said that's fine. The second prosecutor has been offered every facility to question Julian Assange over 5 years. The British government has pleaded with her, virtually, to come to London. It's a normal procedure. At the same time, Sweden has (in London) interviewed something like 44 other people connected with allegations in Sweden, but not Assange. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National So what's going on here — why? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Why? Well, I think it's a combination of reasons, here. There's no evidence — that's number one. I've seen the evidence; there's no evidence. Both these women have said they were not raped. They've both said it's consensual — it was consensual sex. Their SMS messages — one says the police have tried to railroad them into this. The pressures on these two women have been extraordinary. One can only have — one can only have sympathy for them. It's a combination of whys. There's an obsession about this prosecutor, and my sense is that the Swedish authorities haven't quite known what to do about it. The Swedish High Court has reprimanded her for not getting on with the case. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National Is this Marianne Ny? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Yes, Marianne Ny. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National What's the relationship, John, between Swe— Washington and Stockholm?  Is, because Sweden is, you know, meant to be something of a liberal bastion, isn't it? So what is— John Pilger Investigative Journalist [Interjects] Well— Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National —what sort of relationship do they have? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Well, Sweden is not a liberal bastion. Sweden has basked in its—   It is in some areas, yes.  It has enlightened social policies towards the vulnerable and the elderly, and so on, although these have been much broken down over the years. But, in a cultural sense, that image of Sweden going back to the 1960s, as a great libertarian country, no longer exists. Sweden has rather a dark side. It's not a member of NATO, but it's almost a much more committed associate of the United States in that part of the world, and the last government in Sweden had very close links with the extreme right in the Republican party, and it has various associations in the arms business, and so on. So Sweden has a— Swe— Swe— I suppose Sweden plays the same games that countries within a certain sphere of do these days. It is no different from that. But what it does have, as I mentioned, is a very close relationship with the US, and The Independent newspaper, here, revealed that there had been discussions between the Swedish authorities and the US on Assange. I don't think that anyone really has any serious doubts that should Assange go to Sweden (where there is no bail —therefore he goes— would go straight into prison regardless of having not been charged with anything) — that once confined — that something similar would happen to him, as has happened to other people who have been subjected to rendition to the United States from Sweden. This is all guess work, of course, but the assumption has a great deal of credibility. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National John Pilger, how do you think, then, this will all play out? He's been, what, 3 years inside the Ecuadorian embassy. As I understand it — you might have gone and visited him — but, as I understand it, no sunlight, small room. Ken Loach, the film director, he gave him a walker, I think, one of those exerciser machines, didn't he? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Yes. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National So, what's going to happen, is my question? John Pilger Investigative Journalist I see Julian Assange regularly, and I've been to the embassy many times.  And, it's really — inside, it's like your living room and my living room.  Yes, sunlight comes in through the windows, but with the police pretty well outside, you have to keep the curtains closed, otherwise you have a member of the constabulary looking in on you and, so, it's a very confined space. And it's the kind of thing that no human being should have to go through. It's the sort of detention that, really, is against all the post war covenants of human rights and so on. But it is a place of refuge, and that's why he's there. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National Finally, John Pilger, I just — before you go, I just wonder if you've got a couple of thoughts on the Labour leadership in the UK — Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader contender - he continues to do well in the polls. In fact, the press has dubbed it 'Corbyn Mania.' His views are very much to the left of the Labour mainstream: he wants to, you know, withdraw from NATO; abolish the UK's nuclear arsenal. So, where, can I ask you, where is he drawing his support, and why do you think it's happening? John Pilger Investigative Journalist It says something about the mainstream [laughs] when you describe it that way. Jeremy Corbyn is actually the mainstream. And who these people are - it's such fun to watch them so hysterical over somebody who might be democratically elected by ordinary people. What a terrible thing to happen. They used to call this democracy. But because they've stitched up the system for such a long time; especially, since the rise of Tony Blair and his evangelical followers, who dominate the Labour party, still; because this man who has rather moderate views and old fashioned views (the kind of old fashioned views that most people subscribe to), and because people are so frustrated all over the world — I'm sure it's true in New Zealand, as well (it certainly is in Australia) — are frustrated that there isn't a functioning democracy; that the views of people - the frustrations of people — are not reflected by their politicians. Suddenly, out comes a man who, first of all, he's completely incorruptible; he's decent; he doesn't abuse people; he doesn't play all their games; he doesn't want to go to war with countries; he doesn't want to bomb countries; he doesn't want to see people impoverished; and he doesn't want to see extremely rich interests make off with billions of pounds. So having these outrageous views — thoroughly 'outrageous,' 'extremist' views - Jeremy Corbyn has attracted an enormous support from people. I was in Edinburgh recently and I gave a talk, and I would have thought that, probably, most of the people in the audience had voted for the SNP — voted for Independent — gee, were they interested in Corbyn, even up there. So, don't know. I think it's very likely the elected leader of the Labour party whether he can get through and keep that rather corrupted organisation in a shape that it might win the election, I have no idea. But he's certainly given people — he's cheered people up. He's given them a sense that maybe some things are possible. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National Journalist and film-maker, John Pilger, thank you very much for your time. John Pilger Investigative Journalist You're very welcome. Bye, Bye. ——— end audio ——— Please Support journalist Julian Assange Under Siege Ecuador embassy London (3 Years) Detained 5 Years No Charge FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/ ꕤ

UK's Run By Psychopaths - Ignore Parliament Decisons, Hide Facts from Public | Airstrikes Syria

Today's most shocking story. SOURCE http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/british-pilots-flew-airstrikes-against-syria-1828462799 British pilots flew airstrikes against IS in Syria #SyriaWar British PM accused of contempt for democracy after revelations that pilots took part in bombing campaign without parliamentary sanction A British fighter jet returns to its base in Cyprus after a mission over Iraq last September (AFP) Simon Hooper's picture Friday 17 July 2015 12:14 UTC Last update: Friday 17 July 2015 15:19 UTC British military pilots carried out airstrikes in Syria while embedded with allied forces fighting the Islamic State group, the UK government has confirmed, despite parliamentary opposition to military involvement in the civil war-stricken country. Responding to a freedom of information request, the Ministry of Defence said that Royal Air Force pilots embedded with US and Canadian forces “operating in Syrian airspace” had flown “strike missions” against IS targets. British forces have been involved in the air campaign against IS in Iraq since last September but they have not formally participated in the wider coalition effort targeting territory held by the group and other Islamist factions in Syria. The British parliament voted against military action in Syria in 2013, and Michael Fallon, the British defence secretary, had earlier indicated that any expansion of the UK’s air campaign to Syria would be put before parliament. Critics on Friday accused David Cameron, the British prime minister, of displaying contempt for democracy and of keeping the public in the dark about the activities of the country’s armed forces. “Parliament voted against bombing Syria two years ago. Now we find that the government ignored this and allowed British pilots to bomb under US command,” Lindsey German, one of the founders of the Stop the War Coalition, told MEE. “This was a political and not a military decision and shows the contempt our prime minister has for democratic decisions. This should stop now and we should oppose all further attempts to bomb Syria.” 'Open and honest debate' The Ministry of Defence revealed details of British involvement in Syria in response to a freedom of information request submitted by Reprieve, a human rights organisation, which made the information public on Thursday. “It is alarming that parliament and the public have been kept in the dark about this for so long,” said Jennifer Gibson, staff attorney at Reprieve. “Yet more worrying is the fact that the UK seems to have turned over its personnel to the US wholesale, without the slightest idea as to what they are actually doing, and whether it is legal. “We need an open and honest debate about UK involvement in Iraq and Syria. We can’t have that, though, until the UK comes clean about what actions its personnel are already undertaking.” Responding to Reprieve, the Ministry of Defence said it did not have information on the specific number or location of airstrikes carried out by British pilots, and said that its personnel were subject to the chain of command of the forces with whom they were embedded. “UK military personnel embedded with the USA, French and Canadian armed forces have been authorised to deploy with their units to participate in coalition operations against ISIL. UK embeds operate as if they were the host nation’s personnel, under that nation’s chain of command,” it said. “These personnel include pilots flying ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] and strike missions against ISIL targets using the equipment of those units. Of these three nations only the USA and Canada are operating in Syrian airspace.” A Ministry of Defence spokesman told the UK’s Press Association news agency that there were currently no British pilots operating in Syria and said only “small numbers” had been involved in operations there as part of the embed programme. Fallon has argued for an extension of British military involvement in the international campaign against IS and suggested it is an “illogicality” to target the group in Iraq but not in Syria. British armed forces have committed about 1,000 personnel to the coalition, with most of them involved in airstrikes in Iraq launched from bases in Cyprus and others deployed in training and advisory roles with Iraqi and Kurdish forces. On Thursday Fallon announced plans to deploy a second RAF spy plane to the region later this year and said the UK was the only coalition member conducting “manned ISR” over Syria. 'Lack of leadership' Cameron has also suggested that the UK should consider joining the military effort in Syria after 30 British tourists died in an attack claimed by IS on a beach resort in Tunisia last month.  [What?  Nothing to do with Syria.] Earlier this week he invited several senior members of the opposition Labour Party to attend a meeting of the government's national security council in an effort to win cross-party support for potential attacks on targets in Syria. A spokesperson for Cameron said on Tuesday: "He has been clear he wants to approach this with consensus. He thinks it is important that people understand the nature of the threat." The Labour Party said it would call for the government to make a statement about the airstrikes in parliament on Monday. Jeremy Corbyn, one of four candidates currently running for the leadership of the party, said the government needed to be straight with the public and said there was no mandate for UK involvement in Syria. "It absolutely has no authority for British forces to be involved in Syria. The excuse that these individual pilots are embedded with other airforces seems to me a very difficult and dodgy argument," Corbyn told Sky News television. Criticism of the role of British pilots in the skies over Syria also came on Friday from inside Cameron's governing Conservative Party, with one parliamentarian suggesting the government had displayed "an insensitivity to parliament's will". "I think this is a lack of, if anything, political leadership. We had a major vote. There should be sensitivity on this issue, and we should be very sensitive to the fact that we have military personnel participating, in effect, in military intervention," John Baron, a Conservative MP, told BBC Radio's Today Programme. "Those individuals should be withdrawn from the embedded programme whilst this vote holds sway, while it still has authority, until we vote again. This is at the end of the day what parliamentary democracy is all about, regardless of the pros and cons of military intervention." Members of parliament rejected a government motion seeking support for British military backing for a proposed US-led campaign against Syrian government forces in 2013 following a deadly chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus. The US subsequently ruled out taking unilateral military action against Bashar al-Assad's government. The US-led coalition against IS has conducted thousands of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria since launching Operation Inherent Resolve last year. Coalition forces on Wednesday bombed 15 targets in Syria and 16 targets in Iraq, US Central Command said in its latest operational update. -Charles B. Anthony contributed to writing this report. SOURCE http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/british-pilots-flew-airstrikes-against-syria-1828462799 --------------------- COMMENT What a great way this is to palm off responsibility: "UK embeds operate as if they were the host nation’s personnel, under that nation’s chain of command" Ummm, I think this was the work of the US-backed 'moderate rebels': "deadly chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus" Earlier posts refer to articles about how this 'chemical attack' story was spun. Seeing the US perversely names operations as the exact opposite of true intent, Operation Inherent Resolve must be Op Don't Really Give A F*ck .. which would explain why crazy fundamentalists are overrunning the Middle East, despite these 'thousands of airstrikes' that somehow miss the convoys of barbarians that can probably be seen driving across barren desert, from as far as the moon. Don't know what's going on in the UK, apart from insanity. If UK government is going to go ahead and ignore parliament, doing whatever it wants regardless of parliamentary decisions, then the whole thing's a farce, really.  And if it's that much of a farce, does it really matter what happens in future (re meetings, debate etc), when you're still dealing with liars that do whatever they want?  It's not like they can ever be trusted to be straight. --------------------- As I understand it: The US, Gulf Arabs (incl. Saudi Arabia) & the West are trying to bring down the Assad govt. So they've sponsored and armed the 'moderate rebels' (who turn out to be some shade of ISIS or other), and all these 'rebels' slash religious zealots are running amok all over the Middle East, where the West has already engineered the destruction of the Libyan government & funnelled arms to the Syrian 'moderate opposition' slash jihadists.  And the end game is to undermine Iran and its allies in the region, in favour of fundamentalist Saudi dictatorship regional hegemony. However, the West has recently reached the Iran nukes deal.  But I imagine, the West would be just as keen to bring down Iran as it would Syria, so this is rather odd.  But the deal's done and there's talk of corporate investment in Iran.  Don't understand this development, unless the nukes deal is some kind of ruse and maybe Iran will be surprise attacked. Israel has pretty much said it doesn't care about the deal:  it will ignore the terms and attack Iran, if it sees fit.  But all of this will probably be smoothed over & sweetened by upping USA military aid to Israel ... & releasing Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard, by the look of things. Among all of this, the West is making out like it's attacking ISIS ... but they're not really.  They're violating Syrian sovereignty and, from what I've read, backing regional (US-friendly) Kurds in the bid for control of territory. What's really disgusting is that the nations that wish to bring down the Syrian government, violate Syrian sovereignty rather than co-operate with Syria in tackling the ISIS threat. Likewise, I think there's also a gap in the co-operation with Iran, when it comes to co-ordinating defence in the region. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia gets a 'free' card and bombs Yemen to smithereens, but nobody's squawking in the UN about human rights and sanctions on the Saudis. [This is just my take from what little I've read.]