Assange: The Truth They've Been Hiding from You

Most of what you think you know about Assange is false.

Jun 03, 2023

Watch our censored YouTube video, or watch on Odysee instead

Assange: Why you should care

Julian Assange, creator of WikiLeaks, is an activist who has dedicated his life to exposing the lies and corruption of some of the most powerful governments on earth — and for over a decade he’s also been relentlessly hunted by them.

Assange is a controversial figure. Some vilify him as a criminal and an enemy of the state. Others hail him as a champion of transparency and free speech. Indeed, he’s been honored with countless prestigious journalism awards.

Yet he languishes in prison under horrendous conditions, facing the paradox that the very reasons he earned these accolades are also what led to his incarceration.

It’s hard for the average person to know what to think about Assange, because for over a decade his actions have been shrouded in a fog of conflicting narratives and media portrayals -- and that is by design.

“This is the public narrative that has been spread in the media for 10 years, and no one has been able to actually see how much deception there is.”

~Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture

Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, explained in the recent film Ithaka that there is a complex web of misinformation surrounding Assange intended to smear him, and the reason for this has everything to do with what Assange leaked to the world — he’s in custody because he published the truth.

There are powerful people who want to neutralize Assange’s influence by making an example of him.

“Extraditions are 99% politics and 1% law. It's entirely the political climate around the case that decides the outcome, and that is shaped by the media. And for many years there was a climate that was deliberately created through false stories, through smears, through relentless character attacks on Julian to try to reduce that support and make it more likely to successfully extradite him to the United States.”

~Stella Assange

In the film Ithaka, Stella Assange, Julian’s wife and former legal counsel, explained that extraditing Assange to the US would make him the first publisher in history to be charged under the espionage act. What journalists do for a living has become a criminal act.

So what's at stake here? If Julian goes down, so will journalism.

“There is no America without a free press, there is no free press without freeing Julian Assange.”

~John Shipton, Julian Assange’s father

There are at least six big lies about Assange that have been deliberately used to distract us from what is one of the most important, precedent-setting cases for freedom of speech of our generation. If there’s one thing you should take away from this, it’s that most of what you think you know about Assange is false.

Why is Assange locked up?

The indictments against Assange are all related to the publication of documents in 2010 concerning the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

“The US government is trying to extradite this guy and put him in prison for the rest of his life, for the best work that WikiLeaks ever did, that has won awards in every country basically around the planet, including the United States, which is the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs [and] detainee records in Guantanamo Bay, things that are about explicit war crimes and abuses of power.”

~Edward Snowden

In 2010 an extensive collection of documents was anonymously uploaded to WikiLeaks, later revealed to be from former US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. After thorough vetting, WikiLeaks began publishing a portion of these materials, starting with a video called Collateral Murder. It depicted a U.S. Army helicopter opening fire on a group of people in Baghdad, including two Reuters journalists. The U.S. military initially asserted for many years that the individuals in the group were armed insurgents, but the video showed that most of them were unarmed civilians. The leaked footage also exposed the cruelty of the pilots, treating the shooting like a video game.

The release of Collateral Murder was a significant moment in the history of investigative reporting and whistleblowing, and demonstrated the power of independent journalism in holding governments and institutions accountable, and revealing their lies.

“These publications were a game changer. This really opened the eyes of the public to what was going on.”

~Stella Assange

After a military investigation, the pilots involved were cleared of any wrongdoing. The only people who raced any changes were those who leaked and published the video, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange respectively.

Over the ensuing months WikiLeaks went on to release the Afghanistan war logs, the Iraq war logs, and Cablegate, which included US diplomatic cables. In total, there were hundreds of thousands of documents.

“This particular set of documents is the most extraordinary compendium of war that has ever been released.”

~Julian Assange

“The disclosure provides a trove of new evidence on the violence, torture and suffering that's befallen Iraq since the 2003 US invasion.”

~Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!

It was shocking and eye opening for the public to get this unprecedented insight into how war is actually waged.

“We estimate that when fully analyzed these logs will bring to the public knowledge more than 15,000 previously unreported civilian deaths.”

~John Sloboda, Co-founder, Iraq Body Count

Lie #1: Unredacted Document Dump

The first lie that we are told about these events is that Assange was responsible for a mass, reckless, unredacted document dump.

Unredacted documents were indeed released to the public — But the truth of how they got there isn’t usually talked about.

For the 2010 Chelsea Manning leaks, WikiLeaks collaborated closely with several prominent news organizations, such as The Guardian and The New York Times, to analyze and redact sensitive information prior to publication. These media outlets worked in tandem with WikiLeaks to review and contextualize the extensive collection of documents. The goal was not only to ensure that the information reached a broad audience but also to guarantee accurate and responsible dissemination of the reporting. During this process, Julian and his team actually worked very hard to redact these documents.

So why do people think otherwise?

Here’s what happened: The original documents were saved in an encrypted file, and that file somehow began to circulate on the internet. It’s unclear how it got there, but rumors are that a backup copy of the WikiLeaks file server was stolen by a former, disgruntled employee. This probably would have been fine, because the file was encrypted anyway. Except then:

Two of the Guardian journalists that were working on the State Department cable's release published a book — In that book, one of the chapter headings is the actual passphrase that unlocked the encrypted file containing the original, unredacted documents.

Chapter 11:
ACollectionOfDiplomaticHistorySince_1966_ToThe_PresentDay#
Assange’s 58-character Password

Once Julian realized this he rang the State Department in an effort to stop the documents from being released. Project Veritas released a recording of the conversation:

Cliff Johnson, Attorney, U.S. State Department:
And who would be releasing these cables? Is this WikiLeaks?

Julian Assange:
No, we would not be releasing them. We are doing our usual thing of continuing on with our redaction plan.

Assange encouraged the State department to take down rogue copies of the file, and to warn anyone who might be mentioned in the cables that their names were about to be released; but the state department refused to help.

Eventually Cryptome, an online repository for leaked documents focusing on national security, intelligence, and government secrecy, published the complete set of unredacted cables.

WikiLeaks called the Guardian's actions in revealed the password to the encrypted files "gross negligence or malice" and a “violation of their confidentiality agreement.”

Meanwhile, The Guardian shirked any responsibility for their own role in the leak and claimed that they thought the passphrase was temporary and unimportant; but as Wired reported at the time, crypto keys last forever, so “the Guardian clearly should have treated the key as highly sensitive for the foreseeable future.”

After the documents were already in the wild, WikiLeaks published a copy.

Journalists from The Guardian and Cryptome have not faced criticism for the events. Instead, it is Julian Assange that suffered damage to his reputation.

This misinformation around these unredacted document dumps was no doubt fuelled by this corporate media coverage, like the article from the Guardian titled “WikiLeaks publishes full cache of unredacted cables.”

Lie #2: People Were Hurt

The next lie we hear constantly is that “people were hurt” by the release of documents.

In November of 2010, Hilary Clinton talked in a press conference about “endangering innocent people. PBS ran stories about how sources were put at risk.

It’s possible people were hurt, but that’s not what official investigations into the matter have found. Obama set up a special group, spending $6 million to try and find anyone who was harmed by the Chelsea Manning leaks. The ex-General who was in charge of this investigation admitted under oath at Chelsea Manning's hearing that they could not find anybody who'd been harmed. The prosecution in Julian's hearing also admitted that there was no evidence of anybody being harmed.

It’s a fabrication that has stuck. Pointing fingers at Julian helps distract from the important information revealed in the leaks themselves.

“These executives are responsible for the administration of a million deaths in Iraq, the destruction of Libya, the destruction of Yemen, the destruction of Afghanistan, 38 million refugees driven out of the Middle East. Between six and 7 million direct deaths over the entire Middle East as a result of the destruction of these countries… and they say Julian Assange may have caused hurt to people. Staggering.”

~John Shipton

Lie #3: Hacked Govt Computers to Steal Docs

What’s another common thing we hear about Assange?
“Well, he shouldn’t have hacked into government computers!”
If you look at the actual indictments against Assange, he’s not facing 170 years in prison for hacking, but for journalism.

The Obama administration actually tried for years to find a way to criminally charge Assange, and ultimately determined that they couldn’t. They gave two reasons:

Assange is a publisher, not a hacker.
There is no way to go after WikiLeaks that would not set a precedent against the rest of the press.

In 2013 The Washington Post called this the “New York Times problem”, saying that:

“If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.”

~The Washington Post

The push to go after Assange stagnated for years, but then WikiLeaks published “Vault 7”, a collection of documents exposing the cyber-espionage tools used by the CIA. By this time the Trump administration had come into power, and according to a former national security official, WikiLeaks became a complete obsession for then director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, who wanted vengeance on Assange.

“The Trump administration wanted to use this case not just as an opportunity to go after Assange, but as an opportunity to go after national security journalism.”

~Jameel Jaffer, Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute

The Trump administration reignited the attack against Assange, but then the Biden administration continued it. They’ve used the Espionage Act as their weapon, with 17 out of the 18 charges against Assange falling under this archaic law from 1917. The Espionage Act was designed to target spies and saboteurs, not those who seek to inform the public about government activities. This is the first time the Espionage Act has ever been used against a publisher, which is shocking given that it explicitly says in the Constitution:

“Congress shall make NO law … abridging the freedom … of the press.”

~The US Constitution

By using the Espionage Act against publishers, the US has effectively added the caveat of all caveats to the First Amendment to basically say that “press is protected… unless they want to share information that the government doesn’t want revealed”. This destroys the whole point of the First Amendment, and is blatantly unconstitutional.

So despite the fact that the Constitution protects the publishing of secret documents even if the sources of those documents obtained them through illegal means, counts 1 through 17 against Assange say his conspiracy to obtain, receive and disclose national defense information was a criminal act.

They charges explain that, as part of the this conspiracy, Assange:

“Used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records.”

Using encrypted cloud storage to share documents is what journalists do every day.

“Used the "Jabber" online chat service to collaborate” with Manning.

Journalists talk to their sources via encrypted chat everyday.

“Took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure.”

Journalists protecting their sources is integral to responsible reporting.

“Encouraged Manning to provide information.”

Journalists ask for more information from their sources every day.

There is one final indictment against Assange, a “Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion” charge. It was originally unveiled alongside a press release from the DOJ titled: “WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Computer Hacking Conspiracy”, but if you read the actual indictment it’s not about hacking at all. It’s not alleged that Assange broke into any computers to steal documents. What’s alleged is that Assange tried to help Manning crack a password hash in an attempt to help her maintain her anonymity. The hash had nothing to do with obtaining classified documents. Manning already had access to all documents that she would leak, and had already been uploading them to WikiLeaks. Cracking the hash was a way to help Manning disguise her identity. Even if the allegations against Assange prove true, they would fall under the scope of journalistic practices rather than hacking, as journalists routinely work with sources to protect their identities — it’s an essential part of their profession.

However, this “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” charge is almost a distraction, to give the media a good headline. It was the first and originally the only indictment against Assange, and would have gotten him a maximum of 5 years in prison if he were found guilty. It’s not even clear he would have been found guilty, because all the talk about the hash was between Manning and an anonymous person on Jabber, and Manning never revealed this person’s identity.

Now let’s put all of this in perspective:

The story we hear from the media is that Assange faces 175 years in prison for hacking.

He's doesn't.

Assange faces 170 years in prison for journalism, and 5 years for hacking.

Why is an award-winning journalist facing 170 yrs for activities protected under the Constitution?

Lie #4: Not a Real Journalist

Over and over people continue to perpetuate the falsehood that “Assange isn’t a real journalist, so freedom of the press doesn’t apply here.”

The argument that The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are the only legitimate press might have held more water in 2010, but it’s 2023. Independent journalists break stories every day.

Assange has literally won at least 26 prestigious journalism awards (but let’s remember that someone doesn’t need to win awards at all to be considered “legitimate press”).

So make up your own mind about this one.

Lie #5: “He’ll Be Safe”

The 5th lie we’ll talk about is this idea that Assange can just provide his defense in court, and if he really is a journalist he’ll be safe — but that’s not how the Espionage Act works.

Under the Espionage Act, Assange won’t be able to try to justify why he did what he did, or argue that he’s a journalist, or that it was in the public interest. The trial is simply to determine whether or not documents were released. And we already know the answer to that: It’s an unequivocal yes. The trial is merely a rubber stamp on a forgone conclusion. On top of that, the question of whether he’ll be SAFE if he’s brought to the USA is a clear one — The CIA literally discussed having Assange assassinated while he was in the Ecuadorian Embassy. By extraditing him to the US, the UK would be handing off Assange to the same people who tried to murder him.

Lie #6: Reasons for Leaving Embassy

Why was Assange kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy?

In 2017, corporate media reports suddenly began reporting that Julian had “outlived his welcome in the Ecuadorian embassy,” that he was “skateboarding in the halls, stealing wifi, and that his cat had been making a mess.”

Granted, Assange was probably going stir crazy living in a single small room for 7 years without sunlight or being able to see a tree.

However, there’s an important piece of information missing: these reports of disruptive behavior only began after a new regime came into power in Ecuador in 2017, led by Lenín Moreno.

Two more things also happened at this time: WikiLeaks became target number 1 for the CIA after their Vault 7 release, and a new CIA director was sworn in, Mike Pompeo. One of Pompeo’s first ever speeches was dedicated to designating WikiLeaks as an enemy of the state.

“It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is a non-state hostile intelligence service”

~Mike Pompeo

This brought WikiLeaks directly under the CIA’s purview by implying that they were a threat to U.S. national security. It was at this time during Assange’s stay at the embassy that the CIA began actively spying on him, installing hidden cameras and microphones in his living quarters, and he was subject to increasingly hostile conditions, including “oppressive isolation, and harassment”. 2 years into this new regime, Ecuador rescinded Assange's asylum, and the UK police dragged him out of the embassy.

The decision came just a month after the IMF approved a $4.2 billion dollar loan for Ecuador.

I’m sure this was completely unrelated to Ecuador immediately handing over Assange.

Former Ecuadorian president Correa called Moreno’s decision “cowardly,” and said the Ecuadorian government had only done it because WikiLeaks had leaked allegations about Moreno himself.

Aftermath

Once dragged out of the embassy, Assange was put in Belmarsh maximum security prison, regarded as the UK’s Guantanamo bay. He’s been there ever since, for 4 years now, awaiting extradition to the US. He's not actually even serving any sentence, he’s simply waiting through an endless back and forth of appeals with the UK courts to decide whether his extradition to the US will be granted. The judge has had everything he needs to make a decision about the extradition for over 6 months, yet Assange still languishes in prison. And what’s more is the judge actually has no time limit within which he must make a decision. Assange can stay in maximum security prison indefinitely, without ever having been found guilty of anything.

During this time at Belmarsh he has suffered a stroke and severe mental illness.

Both the UK and the US are happily taking their time with the proceedings. Because the fact is, as long as Assange is silenced behind bars, they’ve already won.

“They’re actually trying to use Assange as a threat against everyone else, not only in the US but around the world as an example to frighten people.”

~John Young, Cryptome

John Young was actually the original publisher of the unredacted diplomatic cables, and has even written to the DOJ requesting to be indicted as a codefendant with Assange. However, because Cryptome isn’t as widely known as WikiLeaks, no one from the government has EVER reached out to him, let alone charged him with anything. Assange is their target, because Assange is high profile enough to provide a chilling effect for other journalists, who might be tempted to publish documents about the US government.

As far as the 18 counts against Assange are concerned, John Young pointed out that those charges also apply to himself and Cryptome, and they’re just one of dozens of outlets putting our classified and secret information.

Daniel Ellsberg, the famous whistleblower who leaked the pentagon papers, also confirmed that he was given a copy of the Manning leaks as a backup. If possessing these documents is a crime as the Espionage Act claims, he says:

“I am as guilty in their eyes as Assange, how come they haven’t come after me?”

~Daniel Ellsberg

In fact, the Espionage Act is so broad that it makes basically anyone guilty.

“Anyone who retains a copy of the New York Times which has the word “classified” in it and who fails to turn over that copy to authorities authorized to receive it, is as guilty as I am, under the plain language of that act.”

~Daniel Ellsberg

Yet Assange is being singled out and made an example of.

“He should not face this alone, I think all of those of us who are doing a similar kind of work …I think we gotta raise more hell … and publish more as our obligation as citizens. We’re not doing anything more other than exerting our constitutional rights under the first amendment.”

~John Young, Cryptome

What can you do?

If you live in the US, call (202) 224-3121 for the House switchboard operator, tell them your zip code to be connected to your representatives' office, and tell them you want the extradition request against Assange dropped. Biden isn’t going to drop this extradition without considerable political pressure.

The Assange saga has been ongoing for 13 years, becoming increasingly entangled in a web of misinformation during that time. Given the vast scope of events that have unfolded over more than a decade. This case represents a critical juncture for the future of press freedom.

It doesn’t matter whether you like Assange or not, or whether you’ve bought into the mainstream narratives against him — You should be very worried about the fate of journalism around the world. When powerful individuals can suppress information to protect their interests, we risk entering a chilling world where truth and accountability become casualties.

It is time to recognize the stakes at hand and demand an end to this ordeal. Free Assange, and in doing so, protect the future of press freedom.

Subscribe to the CryptoBeat newsletter and receive it directly in your inbox each week!

NBTV runs entirely on donations, and they’re tax deductible in the USA!
Want to support the show in crypto or fiat, AND pay fewer taxes? Visit our website!