May 8, 2019 • 3
Comments
The Italian journalist
and WikiLeaks collaborator speaks with Dennis J. Bernstein and Randy
Credico about the implications of Assange’s struggle against U.S.
extradition.
By Dennis J Bernstein and Randy Credico
Julian Assange was back in
court twice last week, and will return to a high British court next month for
the major legal battle of his life. It will determine whether the U.S. is
allowed to extradite the WikiLeaks publisher to the U.S. for
prosecution.
In the first of a series of
extradition hearings on May 2, Assange
appeared in court via video screen. He seemed composed and focused and
ready to fight. He told the British High Court: “I do not wish to surrender for
extradition. I’m a journalist winning many, many awards and protecting many
people.” The next procedural hearing is scheduled for May 30 and another
substantive hearing for early June.
Stefania Maurizi is an
investigative journalist for the Italian daily la Repubblica and
the author of two books; “Dossier WikiLeaks: Segreti Italiani” and “Una Bomba,
Dieci Storie.” She has for years worked closely with Assange on some of the
most significant WikiLeaks releases including “Collateral
Murder.” Maurizi also worked closely with Edward Snowden, who blew the
whistle on National Security Agency surveillance.
On May 2, right after
Assange’s high court appearance, Maurizi told us that she
fears for the health and welfare of Assange. She said she also fears for what
it might mean to other journalists and whistleblowers if Assange is convicted
in a U.S. court for his crucial work with whistleblowers, which has been used
widely by news organizations.
Dennis Bernstein: Stefania
Maurizi, I’d like you to start by giving us your gut reaction to what we have
seen so far in terms of the treatment of Julian in recent days.
Stefania Maurizi: For
me it has been really shocking to witness how Julian Assange has declined in
the last nine years. I have been able to see changes in Julian’s health
and psychology. It was so sad, and no one could do anything. I could
report on it and expose it but the other media and public opinion did
absolutely nothing to make the government understand how terrible his treatment
was. And all this is happening not in Russia, not in North Korea, this is
happening in London, in the heart of Europe. I now realize how little we
can do in our democracy. If you look at what has happened to high-profile
whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, and an important
publisher like Assange, who had the courage to publish these important
revelations, what did your democracy do to save them, to treat them in a human
way? Chelsea Manning was put in prison for seven years, where she tried to
commit suicide twice. Now she is back in prison. Edward Snowden was
forced to leave the U.S. Julian Assange has spent nine years in
detainment and no one did anything. We were reporting, we were
denouncing, we were exposing how seriously his health was declining.
Nothing happened.
Dennis Bernstein: You’ve
worked very closely with Julian Assange in Italy. You were in a sense a
co-publisher in getting out crucial documentation. Could you talk about
why you consider Assange not only a publisher, but one of the most important
publishers of our time?
Stefania Maurizi: I
started working with WikiLeaks in 2009 when very few people knew
about them. They hadn’t yet published important documents like
“Collateral Murder” or the “War Logs.” I immediately saw that they were
going to start a revolution. And that is what has happened: They have
changed journalism. Their model of journalism spread and we see now leaks
everywhere. We see this model of collaborative media partnership used by
many media, like the Panama Papers Consortium. In addition, you have to realize
the importance of what they have revealed. They have revealed the true
face of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have revealed the inner
working of U.S. diplomacy, for example, how they put pressure on Italian
prosecutors who were trying to convict a CIA agent responsible for the extraordinary
renditions here in Italy. Or they published revelations of how the U.S.
forced the Italian government to purchase a Lockheed jet fighter. This
information is now available to everyone. You can see how The
Washington Post used emails to investigate the [Jamal] Khashoggi murder
and they were able to do so because they had the courage to publish these
files. Even in the case of the Panama Papers, only the journalists inside the
partnership can access the original files. WikiLeaks made these
files fully accessible to everyone, so that every journalist, ever activist,
every scholar, every citizen can be empowered by this information free of
charge. That is the revolution.
Dennis Bernstein: Chelsea
Manning is now in jail, refusing to cooperate with the grand jury. This
is someone who spent so much time in solitary confinement. One of the key
collaborations had to do with the activities of the U.S. government in Central
America, destabilizing, undermining governments. Now they say they never
get involved. If you look at the documentation in the context of the
current attempt by [U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela] Elliot Abrams to
destabilize Venezuela, here comes WikiLeaks again.
Stefania Maurizi: Absolutely.
Whenever we have a scandal, we can go to the WikiLeaks website and
search for any pertinent information. The information they publish
continues to inform the public. They are now paying a huge price. I
myself feel guilty because I was able throughout the past 10 years to work on
all these documents, to verify them and publish them without any risk.
Julian and WikiLeaks are paying a huge price and all the editors are
silent. People accuse me of acting as an activist. I am not acting
as an activist, I am speaking out because I feel uncomfortable when I see how
professional journalists have all sorts of protection and are not facing
imprisonment or extradition.
Randy Credico: The last
time I saw you was in December of 2017. I had seen Julian three months
earlier and his health had declined noticeably in those few months. Now
that he is in jail, is he able to see doctors? What is his physical
health like at this point?
Stefania Maurizi: I
am not sure whether he is able to see visitors. It is a very strict
regime, there are very strict rules for suspected terrorists. He spends
most of his time completely alone. This comes after spending the last
seven years at the embassy almost entirely alone, apart from occasional
visits. So you can imagine how his forced isolation is affecting his
health.
Randy Credico: I look at
the sentence that judge Deborah Taylor handed down: a year in jail for
allegedly skipping bail. Can you go into the bogus charges that were never
filed against Julian, and how they were perpetuated with the assistance of the
Crown Prosecution Service?
Stefania Maurizi: Five
years had passed since the Swedish case was closed. No journalistic
organization had ever tried to access these documents. Thousands of
journalists had covered the case but no one had the facts clear. At that
point I realized that it was important from a journalistic point of view to try
to access the documentation. These documents allow us to establish important
facts, such as that it was the U.K. that advised the Swedish prosecutors
against questioning Assange in London. The whole case began with this
refusal by the Swedish prosecutor. Now we know that behind this decision
there was the Crown Prosecution Service. Let’s not forget that this
agency is the very same agency which is in charge of deciding whether to
extradite Julian Assange to the U.S. now. The Crown Prosecution Service entered
the case at the very beginning and they advised the Swedish prosecutor against questioning
Assange in London. Julian Assange never refused to be questioned, he
refused to be extradited because he was convinced that the extradition to
Sweden could pave the way for his extradition to the U.S.
Now we see that he was
right.
And it was the Crown
Prosecution Service which advised the Swedish prosecutor against dropping the
case in 2013. At that time the Swedish prosecutor conceded to drop the
case but the Crown Prosecution Service advised them against this.
Finally, it was the Crown
Prosecution Service who destroyed crucial emails about the case, even though
the case is still ongoing. I am still fighting in the U.K. tribunal
because I want to access these documents and fill in the gaps. Now the Swedish
prosecutor is evaluating whether to open this case once again. The
statute of limitations is in August 2012. There is a massive campaign
about Julian being a rapist. After one or two years of this campaign, who
will care about Julian Assange being extradited to the U.S.? That is a
possible scenario.
Dennis Bernstein: Again,
Julian had his first hearing today [May 2, 2019] regarding extradition to the
United States. He looked okay but he is definitely in
danger. Stefania, what responsibility do we have as journalists to stand
up? According to Daniel Ellsberg, if they go after Julian and Chelsea the
way they want to in the United States, it is the end of journalism.
Stefania Maurizi: Absolutely.
This case is about whether the press is allowed to publish documents like the
video “Collateral Murder,” which records war crimes and whether the press is
allowed to publish documents about the NSA spying on world leaders, whether the
press is allowed to publish documents on Guantanamo Bay. We saw what
happened after 9/11: habeas corpus came to an end with Guantanamo, the Fourth
Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution] was trampled by the NSA. Now they
want to destroy the First Amendment and they will do it using Julian
Assange. They will not go after The New York Times or The
Washington Post.
Dennis Bernstein: Wouldn’t
you say that part of the genius of WikiLeaks was the ability to
guarantee anonymity? The reason why Assange has been successful and all
these major journalistic organizations were willing to work with him is because
of this process he created to guarantee anonymity.
Stefania Maurizi: Julian
Assange understands technology and he understands the nature of power.
Most geeks know very little about power, about empire. Thanks to his
knowledge in the technology field, we have this platform. But let’s not
forget that WikiLeaks is in trouble now not because they have this
platform, but because they have the courage to publish. It is not enough
to get the documents. Most newsrooms hide such documents. One of
the journalists at The Washington Post had the video “Collateral
Murder” and he didn’t publish it. WikiLeaks did. It is not
enough to have the platform: you have to have the integrity and the courage to
publish. The New York Times didn’t publish the important story
that the NSA was intercepting the communications of U.S. citizens. For
years The New York Times didn’t want to use the word “torture,”
preferring instead “enhanced interrogation.” The reason the U.S.
authorities are hostile toward WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is because
they publish what the U.S. media and many other media don’t want to publish.
Dennis Bernstein: Would
you like to do a shout-out from one courageous woman there in Italy to a woman
who became a woman in solitary confinement and was arrested again on
International Women’s Day?
Stefania Maurizi: I feel
a huge debt of gratitude because I have worked on Chelsea Manning’s documents
for years. I supported her defense fund, I wrote to her in prison.
I have tried to explain to my readers why she is tremendously
courageous. I really would like to see her go free because I cannot accept
that one of the most important journalistic sources of all time is again in
prison.
Dennis Bernstein: Both
Randy and I are extremely grateful for your work, Stefania Maurizi,
investigative journalist for la Repubblica and author of “Dossier
WikiLeaks,” which describes the power of a courageous publisher
like Julian Assange, who has worked with extraordinary sources to get
information out which we would otherwise never have heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment