Wikileaks’ founder seeks refuge in Ecuador
On June 20, 2012, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa acknowledged that his country is considering giving political asylum to Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ founder, who got temporary refuge at Ecuador’s embassy in London. Mr. Correa said that he will consult the UK, Sweden, and the US before deciding on Mr. Assange’s asylum request. In parallel, British authorities have announced that Mr. Assange will be detained as soon as he leaves the Ecuadorian diplomatic compound. Why Ecuador? The choice is more baffling that it looks at first, to the extent that one can’t help but ask: Assange: Patsy or Fool?
Is Wikileaks a CIA front?
The scene was strange. The CNN kept saying it couldn’t validate the data published by WikiLeaks on the Iraq War. Yet, on October 23, 2010, this data kept being repeated and analyzed by the Cables News Network ad nauseum. In small letters at the bottom of the screen, viewers were constantly reminded that none of the reported items could be validated. The BBC also kept analyzing the event. The same was true for most mainstream media outlets. Mainstream media quoting a website and transforming it into a main player in the international arena—for months—is odd news. Especially when considering the nature of the news. Practically all the items quoted seemed to be smear campaigns in favor of the American government or just old news. I analyzed a few examples in On WikiLeaks, 9/11 and American Terror. One of the strangest news published by WikiLeaks concerned the country that gave me political asylum, Bolivia. In 2010, most Bolivians laughed hard at WikiLeaks’ disclosure about Iran being interested in Bolivian uranium. This has been published openly in the local media since 2007. Of course, most international readers do not read Bolivian newspapers and were thus awed by WikiLeaks audacity, accuracy, and novelty. However, this was just another bit of no-news.
It would be too easy to transform this article into a personal attack against Julian Assange. Yet, I won’t do that. He may be a CIA agent, or he may have been used by the CIA. This is easy: WikiLeaks accepts anonymous contributions. As far as I know, all the material published by WikiLeaks looks like disinformation provided by the CIA. We will know for sure that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are clean the day they begin disclosing real names of CIA personnel. Perpetrators of human rights violations and crimes against humanity should not be protected by anonymity. If they are so righteous let them stand in court and defend their crimes. Compare WikiLeaks behavior with the disclosure of Mossad agents’ names in Portrait of a Jewish Terrorist, or Mossad persecution techniques portrayed in The Cross of Bethlehem
But he is persecuted!
Since the outbreak of the WikiLeaks Affair, Julian Assange lived comfortably in London, one of the Western Hydra main cities. That was odd, to say the least. Why the CIA and MI5 allowed that? Slowly, things got hotter for Mr. Assange on the legal arena, until he decided to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy. Ecuador was a strange choice, to say the least.
Ecuador experienced a failed coup d’état in 2010; the event was perpetrated by the police force. According to Phillip Agee’s Inside the Company: CIA Diary, this police force is owned by the CIA. This last event was widely dismissed by Western media. Yet, Venezuelan teleSur news network broadcast in 2011 an incredible report of the event in its program Dossier. There, journalist Walter Martinez did an exceptional job in showing the kidnapping of President Correa by the police. The video shows how a gas grenade is thrown on the president by a police officer, and his gas mask is taken away from his face while he is forcibly taken away. A few hours later, after it was apparent the event had failed, he was released. Then, the commander of the police force resigned. … This military-terror machinery had been trained by the USA, and was designed to perform exactly that: civilian terror for the profit of the Empire… Operation Condor was a campaign of political repression involving institutional assassination and intelligence operations implemented in 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil. The United States—through the CIA—had planning, coordinative and supportive roles. Later on, Ecuador and Peru joined the merry party. Two of these countries—Uruguay and Ecuador—are described as little more than CIA substations in the abovementioned book by Philip Agee (adapted excerpt from The Cross of Bethlehem II: Back in Bethlehem).
The current Ecuadorian president is obviously not an American supporter, having allied himself with Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia. This is true despite his PhD in Economics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His father was caught smuggling cocaine into the USA and was convicted and sentenced to 5 and half years in prison. Later on, he committed suicide. The Ecuadorian president had publicly said that “…drug smugglers are not delinquents. They are single mothers or unemployed people who are desperate to feed their families.” In this context, Julian Assange request for asylum makes sense.
Ecuador? Are you serious?
Rafael Correa is not a USA supporter; however, that doesn’t transform him into a human rights champion. On 16 February 2012, Panama’s President Ricardo Martinelli granted diplomatic asylum to Carlos Pérez Barriga, one of the directors of El Universo, Ecuador’s largest newspaper. This happened after the ratification of a sentence convicting the newspaper’s directors to three years in prison and the payment of $40 million for the crime of slanderous offenses against President Rafael Correa. A stand-off developed since Ecuador didn’t let the now Panamanian refugee to leave the embassys’ compound. Following international pressure, the offended President Correa pardoned the dangerous criminals. This was not the behavior of someone who respects freedom of speech, or even basic human rights. Yet, Julian Assange seeks refuge under Correa’s wings.
This is odd for one declaring himself a champion of information rights. Moreover, considering his occupation, it is unconceivable that Mr. Assange is not aware of the ongoing links—a coup d’état was staged in 2010!—between the CIA and the Ecuadorian Police. Patsy or fool?
Assange: Patsy or Fool?
The few appearances of Assange that I have seen did not give me the impression that he is a fool, despite his openly cursing in front of a TV camera (“Tabloid S******” he said to the BBC). Are we seeing the build-up of a super-agent? Is Assange building up an indestructible reputation, so that he will be able to make a giant strike for the sake of the CIA and its Reign of Terror? Is WikiLeaks a giant smear campaign by the American government against the rest of the world? There are worrying signs that there is more to come. News reporting attacks and counter-attacks over the internet have become common, the affair of the Flame and Stuxnet worms being the most remarkable one. Lawrence Lessig, a respected Law Professor from Stanford University told an audience at the 2008 Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, that “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event” which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet. Lessig also revealed that he had learned, during a dinner with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an “i-Patriot Act,” and that the Justice Department is waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions. Lessig is the founder of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. He is founding board member of Creative Commons and is a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications. These are not the ravings of some paranoid cyber geek.
The Patriot Act, as well as its lesser known follow up the Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as USA Patriot Act II, have been universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. They have stripped back basic rights and handed what have been described by even the most moderate critics as “dictatorial control” over to the president and the federal government. Many believed that the legislation was a response to the attacks of 9/11, but the Patriot Act was prepared way in advance of 9/11 and it sat dormant, awaiting an event to justify its implementation. In the days after the attacks it was passed in the House by a majority of 357 to 66. It passed the Senate by 98 to 1. Congressman Ron Paul told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was even allowed to read the legislation. Exactly the same freedom restricting legislation has already been prepared for the cyber world. Is WikiLeaks the precursor and pretext for yet another American terror attack on our liberties?
In this context, Mr. Assange step makes sense. He will be publicly portrayed as having got political asylum from an anti-American regime, while being jealously protected by the same regime’s police force, which has properly proven links with the CIA. Do you care to comment, Mr. Assange?