In his first interview since
Julian Assange's arrest, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson discusses
the "disgraceful" detention of the platform's founder, criticism of
its links to Russia and what he describes as the "appalling"
treatment of Chelsea Manning.
Interview Conducted By Martin
Knobbe and Michael
Sontheimer
Kristinn Hrafnsson, 56, spent
three decades working as a journalist for media in Iceland, including the
country's public broadcaster. In his reporting, including his research into the
collapse of Iceland's Kaupthing Bank, he used documents from WikiLeaks. In
2010, he established Sunshine Press Productions in Iceland together with the
Australian national Julian Assange. Before replacing Assange as editor-in-chief
of WikiLeaks, Hrafnsson served as the platform's spokesman for six years.
DER SPIEGEL: Mr.
Hrafnsson, on Wednesday you saw WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a court
room in London, where he was sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for violating the
conditions of his bail. British police arrested him on April 11 in the
Ecuadorian Embassy after the government of Ecuador withdrew his political
asylum. How is he doing?
Hrafnsson: He is in the
Belmarsh high-security prison in South London. There, he is waiting for his
trial for the extradition request from the United States government. On Wednesday,
a court found him guilty of a bail act offense when he was using his human
right to seek asylum. As you may remember, he was released on bail in December
2010 after friends had paid a deposit of 200,000 pounds. Before he entered the
Ecuadorian Embassy in June 2012, he cut off his ankle monitor.
DER SPIEGEL: As the new
editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, do you sometimes worry you could end up in a
high-security prison like Assange?
Hrafnsson: As WikiLeaks has
been under attack for 10 years, I am aware of the dangers that come with the
job. I have been working full-time for WikiLeaks since midsummer 2010. It is
obvious that I am in the cross hairs of the U.S. government, its military and
its secret services. We have known since 2014 that not only Julian Assange, but
also other people who are connected with the organization are under
investigation.
DER SPIEGEL: How do you
know this?
Hrafnsson: Google took it
to court that they were forced by a secret U.S. court to hand over data from me
and others on the WikiLeaks team to an investigating U.S. secret court. Google
won the right to inform us. So, Sarah Harrison, Joseph Farrell and I were
informed in December 2014 that our mails were seized because of a grand jury
investigating us in an espionage case.
DER SPIEGEL: How has
Assange changed during his time in the embassy?
Hrafnsson: I have been
quite surprised that he has been withholding and withstanding this situation in
a more resilient manner than I would expect from anybody else.
DER SPIEGEL: How did the
diplomatic asylum end which Assange was granted by the Ecuadorian government in
August 2012?
Hrafnsson: The ambassador
asked him into the meeting room of the embassy and presented a letter, which he
read out loud, saying the diplomatic asylum had been revoked and that he had to
leave the embassy immediately. When Julian left the meeting room and wanted to
go back to his room, the lobby of the embassy was full of British Policemen who
grabbed him.
DER SPIEGEL: That doesn't
really fit with diplomatic rules.
Hrafnsson: Well, it was a
long prepared, politically motivated move. Already last year, the embassy
started a war of attrition, psychological warfare: cutting off the Internet,
installing cell phone jammers, restricting visitors, turning off the heating.
Everything was done to make Julian Assange's life miserable.
DER SPIEGEL: He certainly
didn't look particularly well when he was dragged out of the embassy.
Hrafnsson: I am not sure
if anyone would look really well when he was handcuffed and dragged out by
seven policemen -- not to mention spending seven years inside one flat. It was
disgusting and disgraceful.
DER SPIEGEL: How was
Assange's life in the embassy before he got arrested?
Hrafnsson: The security
staff and diplomats spied on him 24/7. They copied documents from his lawyers,
they recorded the visits of doctors. The United Nations' special rapporteur on
the right to privacy was supposed to meet with him in the embassy, but the
Ecuadorians obviously wanted to expel him before the rapporteur could collect
any evidence in the embassy. He has now visited him in Belmarsh prison.
DER SPIEGEL: Is it true
that you were offered the surveillance material from the embassy?
Hrafnsson: Somebody was
offering it on Twitter, so I contacted the person who immediately said that
this was for sale. The offer was to buy the material for 3 million euros --
otherwise the information would be spread in the media. This was extortion. I
flew to Madrid and had meetings with the special division of the Madrid police
on blackmail and extortion. We filed a complaint there and it was taken very
seriously by the Spanish police and now it is before a court. A complaint has
now also been filed against the Ecuadorian minister of foreign affairs and the
staff of the embassy in London.
DER SPIEGEL: Were you
able to view some of the material?
Hrafnsson: I was allowed
to browse through 104 folders with masses of material on every aspect of
Assange's life. Videos, photographs, audio recordings. The intensity of the
surveillance was shocking.
DER SPIEGEL: There were
reports of Assange not behaving in a way that one would expect from a guest of
the embassy. He supposedly didn't flush the toilet, and he has been described
as arrogant and narcissistic.
Hraffnsson: It is not
hard to manufacture some kind of supposed evidence of negative behavior when
you have somebody under total surveillance for years. The security guards and
diplomats were instructed to collect selectively negative material. They once
found a stain on the light switch of the toilet and alleged it was feces from
Julian. This report was used by the president of Ecuador as evidence that
Julian had been smearing feces all over the walls of the embassy. I mean, how
low can you go?
DER SPIEGEL: What kind of
guy is Assange?
Hrafnsson: I have had to
work with a few editors in my 30 years as a journalist, and I would describe my
relationship with editors as sometimes problematic. I am rather stubborn and
independent. The relationship with Julian was the least problematic of all of
them. He has a very clear vision of where he wants to go. We had disagreements,
but he listened to my views. Sometimes we only agreed to disagree.
DER SPIEGEL: Do you
consider him a journalist or an activist?
Hrafnsson: As both. Back
in 2009, I found it extremely interesting to hear his opinions on information
freedom coming from his background as a digital activist in Melbourne when the
term "hacker" did not yet have a negative connotation but was a label
for creative people who wanted to use the internet in a democratic or
anarchistic way. Although I came from the totally different background of
mainstream media journalism, at the end of the day I found out that we shared
the same values.
DER SPIEGEL: So, you
consider yourself to be an activist and journalist as well?
Hrafnsson: If you are a
journalist and you are not fighting for information freedom, for accountability
and transparency, then you are not a journalist in my eyes. Besides that, I am
absolutely convinced that the struggle for Julian Assange's freedom of is the
biggest struggle for press freedom we have experienced so far in the 21st
century.
DER SPIEGEL: WikiLeaks
has a rather simple but radical approach. If documents are in the public
interest and authentic, they will be published. Is this still the idea?
Hrafnsson: WikiLeaks'
approach would not have been radical a few decades ago, but that changed with
the enormous escalation of secrecy of those in power after 9/11. State secrecy
and corporate secrecy have been increasing without being convincingly
justified. In this environment, the fight of an organization like WikiLeaks is
becoming more radical in an environment changing for the worse. At the same
time, regular people are unprotected against the invasion of their privacy, as
former CIA employee and whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to us. And
private entities like Google, Facebook and others are harvesting our private
information as well. So, yes, this is still the idea.
DER SPIEGEL: In the
beginning, WikiLeaks said: "We don't discriminate, we publish what we
get." Does that still apply today?
Hrafnsson: When we
started to publish U.S. military documents in 2010 on a massive scale, we were
criticized for just "dumping documents" unredacted. We were accused
of having "blood on our hands." In 2013, during Chelsea Manning's
trial, a Pentagon official was called to testify about the harm the
publications had caused and the people who had been killed because of these. He
had to admit that nobody had been harmed.
DER SPIEGEL: But of
course, you still have a responsibility for the people mentioned in the
documents.
Hrafnsson: Once again:
There have been millions of documents published by WikiLeaks. Where is the
harm? And where is the harm in truthful information? And that compared to the
harm that has been exposed and the bloodshed that was caused by the parties
that were exposed.
DER SPIEGEL: But why was
it necessary to publish full names? Does WikiLeaks have any limits at all?
Hrafnsson: Of course,
there are. Parts of the Afghan war documents were withheld by WikiLeaks. If you
would have the manual for how to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles with
nuclear warheads, would you publish it? Of course not!
DER SPIEGEL: What will
happen to Julian Assange in the future?
Hrafnsson: He almost got
the maximum sentence of one year in jail for skipping bail, but the real battle
is the extradition case. It can take two or three years. The U.S. government
has been given two months, until June 12, to produce additional information
supporting the extradition request.
DER SPIEGEL: The
request is based on an indictment on a charge of conspiracy to commit computer
intrusion that holds a maximum sentence of five years. Will that be the only
charge?
Hrafnsson: It is
obviously only the first step, and it would be extremely naive to try to
maintain that other charges will not be added when he is on American soil. Letters
were issued to individuals connected with WikiLeaks where they were offered
immunity if they provided information pertaining to the investigation into what
obviously was being described as the violation of the Espionage Act of 1917.
DER SPIEGEL: Do you
think the government in Washington is trying to get Assange to the U.S. in the
first place on the pretext of the relatively benign charge of conspiracy to
commit computer intrusion, so that it can then come up with additional charges
that might lead to a life sentence or even the death penalty?
Hrafnsson: That's an
absolute certainty. That is the playbook.
DER SPIEGEL: When
American whistleblower Edward Snowden escaped to Moscow, a lot of people in
Germany demanded that he be provided with political asylum here. Assange's
arrest has been met with silence. Why?
Hrafnsson: My impression
is different. We are seeing increasing support because people are starting to
understand the severity of this situation, and even some journalists are
getting how important the case is for the freedom of the press.
DER SPIEGEL: It's a slow
start though.
Hrafnsson: The blueprint
for what has been happening was written out by the CIA and some companies
working for high corporate interests, leaked to WikiLeaks and published by
WikiLeaks almost 10 years ago. The concept includes fighting the support base
of WikiLeaks. And it's done by attacking the individuals who are in the circle
of WikiLeaks and especially by attacking Julian Assange with attempted
character assassination.
DER SPIEGEL: You probably
mean the investigation into him regarding
alleged minor rape. Is it
possible these Swedish investigations will be reopened?
Hrafnsson: I find it
highly unlikely for the simple reason that the Swedish state prosecutors wanted
to close down the case in 2013 and it was the British Crown Prosecution Service
that actually was pushing them to keep the investigation alive.
DER SPIEGEL: Female WikiLeaks
supporters, in particular, have been deterred by these allegations. Even more
supporters might have turned away after WikiLeaks published emails from Hillary
Clinton and other leading U.S. Democrats. They believe that helped Donald Trump
to win the election. Was it a mistake to publish those emails?
Hrafnsson: Absolutely
not. It would have been a severe violation of all journalistic principles not
to publish information passed to a journalistic entity about a political party
and an individual prior to an election. The journalistic entity reviewed the
material, found it to be truthful and in the public interest to publish it,
precisely because there was a forthcoming election. It is not even a choice --
it is a duty for journalists to give the electorate access to all such
information.
DER SPIEGEL: Robert
Mueller stated in his report that two Twitter accounts allegedly connected to a
Russian intelligent service provided WikiLeaks with these documents. Has
WikiLeaks been instrumentalized by Russian intelligence?
Hrafnsson: It is worth
noting that Mueller declined the offer to hear Julian's testimony. There is no
evidence anything was sent by Russian entities that later was published.
Mueller jumps to a conclusion, but it is not based on evidence. But usually
there is an agenda attached to leaked information. There are sometimes
individuals who leak information because they believe it is in the public
interest to do so. They are very honorable whistleblowers, but you could call
that an agenda as well. We have to scrutinize all leaked information and
publish if it is in the public interest.
DER SPIEGEL: But it was
more than just getting information. Assange was in contact with Donald Trump,
Jr., Mr. Trump's oldest son, during the campaign. Was he an active part in the
political game?
Hrafnsson: There is
nothing per se unusual about journalists being in direct contact with political
campaigns. Trump Jr. was not given, in advance, substantive information. It is
not a crime to inform a political campaign of information that has already been
published.
DER SPIEGEL: How do you
address suspicions that WikiLeaks has been fed and used by Russia?
Hrafnsson: I'm not a fan
of Putin. I'm generally a skeptic of power. There's definitely a lot of
criticism, justifiably pointed at Putin's Russia. However, according to the
latest statistics, Russia fell from second to sixth place on the list of
countries' spending on military and defense, so now Saudi Arabia is No. 2. A
few days ago, there were 37 beheadings in Saudi Arabia. We are talking about a
nation that sends out assassination squads to torture and kill journalists. We
are talking about the incubator of Islamist terrorism. So, why don't we put
things into perspective?
DER SPIEGEL: But it's
conspicuous that WikiLeaks has mostly published documents relating to the U.S.
and not, for example, Russia.
Hrafnsson: We have
already published information about corruption in Russia. Putin is mentioned in
our database 82,940 times. We have published information about private
companies working for secret services in Russia. Of course, we would publish
material about the Kremlin if we could authenticate it and if it was in the
public interest to publish it.
DER SPIEGEL: The next
time when you get documents and you know they are from Russian intelligence,
will you deal with it in the same way as you did it in the past?
Hrafnsson: There's an
interesting premise in your question. You said, if you knew it was from Russia.
It should be fairly well-recognized now that WikiLeaks tries its utmost not to
know the source of its submissions. It's our policy, that's why we have a very
advanced system, where you can submit information to us without being traced.
Not knowing the source is probably the best security you can offer a source.
DER SPIEGEL: But if you
happen to know the source, you have to deal with it.
Hrafnsson: I would say
this in general terms: If the devil himself offered me truthful information
about corruption in the Kingdom of Heaven, I would publish it. That's
journalistic duty.
DER SPIEGEL: Chelsea
Manning, a former military analyst who has been WikiLeaks's source for the Iraq
war logs and other documents, has been jailed again because she refused to
testify against Julian Assange. Did the two ever meet personally -- and could
that explain the degree of loyalty?
Hrafnsson: No, they never
met. But I must say: What is being done to Chelsea Manning is such a serious
violation of any principle of law that is absolutely appalling. Chelsea Manning
basically stated: "I do not accept the mandate of a secret court, where I
am being hauled in front of it to demand I give information on a crime that I
was sentenced for, for which I served seven years, after which the president of
the United States reduced my sentence and I was released. I've said everything
that I know in my trial." Because of this stance, she has been thrown in
jail again. This is something that could have happened in the German Democratic
Republic or countries where there is no respect for the rule of law. This is
extortion, she is being extorted into giving evidence in the attempt to get a
harsher sentence for Julian Assange.
DER SPIEGEL: What
conclusions do you draw from Manning's treatment?
Hrafnsson: It looks like
that when it comes to the criminal justice system in the U.S., in certain
cases, it's just a criminal system without justice. Look at the letters that
have been sent out to several individuals who were connected with WikiLeaks and
are now living in exile -- some here in Germany, some in Iceland -- threat
letters with the offer of immunity if they work with the grand jury in Virginia
in the persecution of WikiLeaks. In other words: If you don't cooperate, we
will go after you. I refer to this as the Don Corleone offer, which is from the
Godfather, an offer you can't refuse.
DER SPIEGEL: What are you
hoping for from the Germans?
Hrafnsson: There has to
be some resistance to that overreach. The other day Julian Assange was given
the Daphne Galizia Award by the members of the left group in the European
Parliament. One of the members of parliament who presented it said that the
extradition request for Assange was an attack on European democratic
principles, and I do agree with that. Not only are we seeing the basic
principles of press freedom under attack, the whole case is an attack on our
democracy.
DER SPIEGEL: So, what do
you expect from the German politicians or the government?
Hrafnsson: I would like
to see more spine. It's about drawing a line in the sand, it's not about the
person of Julian Assange, it's not about whether you like him or not, but about
the core principles at stake. If we sacrifice this one, my god, we're in a
pretty nasty territory.
DER SPIEGEL: How will
WikiLeaks proceed from here, and how are you going to finance the platform?
Hrafnsson: Through
donations. The majority of them are relatively small, 20 euros on average.
No comments:
Post a Comment