WBD525 Audio Transcription
The State v Julian Assange with Gabriel Shipton & Stella Moris
Release date: Monday 11th July
Note: the following is a transcription of my interview with Gabriel Shipton & Stella Moris. I have reviewed the transcription but if you find any mistakes, please feel free to email me. You can listen to the original recording here.
Gabriel Shipton is a Film Producer & advocate for his brother Julian Assange; Stella Moris is a lawyer & wife to Julian Assange. In this interview, we discuss the unprecedented State assault on Assange’s freedom, the effects on his mental & physical well-being, & the threat to journalism.
“He represents democracy and freedom at its strongest, and they’ve put him in prison. It’s in everyone’s interest that Julian is freed, it’s a disgusting injustice that demeans our democracies and has a real effect on our freedoms because it sets a precedent. What they’re doing to Julian, they will do, it’s not just that they can do, they will do to others, it’s a matter of time.”
— Stella Moris
Interview Transcription
Peter McCormack: Stella, nice to meet you.
Stella Moris: Hi, I'm happy to be here.
Peter McCormack: Gabe, good to see you again, how are you?
Gabriel Shipton: Yeah, you too, Peter, very good thanks.
Peter McCormack: Father's good?
Gabriel Shipton: Yes, yeah, getting there. We're keeping on, basically.
Peter McCormack: Okay. Well obviously, you know I have a huge interest in Julian's story. We've not yet before, Stella, but it's great to meet you and I appreciate your time. Gabe, we've spoken a few times; I've also spoken to your father. Every time I get to see you, I always hope the next time is when we have some positive development, but this case of Julian's is dragging on and on.
Firstly, can I just apologise for Priti Patel and our government; she doesn't represent all of us. I think the conduct of our government, which is now in disarray at the moment anyway, is not representative of me or a lot of people, I should say that. But I do keep hoping that at some point, we're going to have one of these times when we get together, probably not with a microphone, probably with a beer instead, and be celebrating something.
So, I think my starting point, Stella, actually I'll come to you first, how are you coping with everything?
Stella Moris: Well, I'm fighting for Julian's life, so every day is different. There are really difficult days, obviously. My priority is being there for Julian and trying to advance the campaign, talk as much as I can about it, inform people, because they're incredibly ignorant; not willingly, just misinformed. There has been such a construction of a narrative around Julian that has nothing to do with reality, so a lot of what I do is to try to talk about Julian as he is as a person, and try to set the record straight.
Gabriel Shipton: Okay. And yourself, and your father, John, how are you all coping?
Stella Moris: Obviously, in comparison to how Julian's doing, we're doing great. We're sitting here with you, talking to people all over the world. I think what we're seeing all around the world and what we're feeling from people is more and more support for Julian around the globe, whether it's in Australia, in the US, in England, and that really helps you keep going, keep going when you're fighting against this huge adversary, which is the United States Government, basically.
Support from all these people, like yourself and just people on the streets, ministers in Parliament, everyone, that keeps us going, keeps us able to keep fighting. So, yeah, I think we're doing good. But Julian, it's his third year in a maximum-security prison outside of London. So, he's been there for three years, he's just turned 51. It's his fourth birthday that he's spent in a maximum-security prison, and he's a remand prisoner, he's not serving a sentence; he's solely there at the request of the US DOJ, related to this extradition request. They opposed his bail, so compared to Julian, we're doing all right.
Peter McCormack: So, talk to me about how Julian's doing, because he's obviously a hero of many people. But whereas a decade ago, we would see Julian in the press a lot, see a lot of his pictures; now we tend to see a picture -- there's big time periods between when we see pictures of him and he looks like he's changed a lot, his physical appearance changes a lot. How is he doing? Obviously, I know this is tough on him and this has affected his mental health; are there any good things you can tell us as well; are there any positives for him? I mean, you got married!
Stella Moris: Yeah, we got married and we were able to have four guests: Gabriel and John, Julian's dad, and my mum and my brother and the two kids, so six in total. That was a really nice, happy day! Julian's mood, when he sees the kids, which is about once a week, and he sees me, he lights up. But obviously, every day is a struggle. Belmarsh Prison is the UK's harshest prison; they call it Britain's Guantanamo, and it's tough in there. He's with Category A prisoners, people who were convicted and serving sentences for very serious crimes, and so his day-to-day is very challenging.
In a prison, you don't have any control over your environment and anything can happen. So, as an example, one of the people he had developed a friendship with committed suicide, and this was in the middle of the COVID lockdown, so you can just imagine for Julian, with all the pressures of facing an extradition, an outrageous case by the US, which is politically motivated, he faces a potential sentence of 175 years, and then this kind of thing that he can't anticipate. And when a friend of yours takes his own life, that's really difficult to process under any circumstances.
Julian has to deal with a lot, and preparing for a case, a very complex legal case, he's fighting for his life under circumstances where he's fighting with both hands tied behind his back, because that's the reality. If you're fighting a case from prison, there's just no comparison to fighting it in freedom. So, it changes, depending on what's going on. The Home Secretary of the UK, just a couple of weeks ago, gave the go-ahead for the US extradition. Now, we're still appealing that in the courts, and because of the Home Secretary's profile, Priti Patel, we suspected that she would do that. But even so, it's a blow. Even though you prepare for this kind of thing, there's a lot of anxiety attached to it and it's a lot to process.
He's a fighter, he's the strongest person I know, but obviously he's deeply affected physically as well, from being inside a harsh prison for over three years, needlessly, completely arbitrarily, stuck in a prison. He's a thinker, he's an intellectual, he's a gentle person, a gentle thinker. He's not a dangerous person by any measure, and they've stuck him in this horror of a place. So he's managing, but he's managing because he can see his family, because he can hold his children, and that kind of thing, but it's very hard.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, so as we talked beforehand about, a lot of this audience that listens to my show is in America and they probably won't have heard of Belmarsh prison. I will set the context, that it's a prison that's quite notorious when you're growing up, because it's on the news, mentioned on the news, usually because it houses the most serious murderers, rapists, gangsters in London. It's a notorious, harsh, tough prison, so people should be aware that they've essentially locked Julian up with the worst criminals in the UK.
Okay, so we've covered this on the show before, and I will encourage people to go back and listen to the previous shows. There's always new people coming to listen to my show. I think a lot of people have sympathy and empathy towards Julian and yourself, but maybe don't understand the full details of the case. Now, I don't think we should go through all of it, because it has been covered before, but certainly some kind of recap of how Julian has ended up where he is now.
Stella Moris: Well, Julian is the Founder of WikiLeaks, and he is the driving force behind WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks basically grew out of a movement in the early 2000s for open government and transparency. And Julian was also against the Iraq War, and there was quite a vibrant anti-war movement around that time. So, WikiLeaks was established in 2006. There were several similar projects around the time for open government, and a lot of the Freedom of Information legislation came in around that time too and in that context.
There were similar projects, but WikiLeaks' innovation was Julian's skills and knowledge about cryptography and a deep understanding of the architecture of the internet. He understood the problem that as journalism and society moved onto the internet, journalists would have to be able to protect their sources in a different way. Julian's a cryptographer originally and a security expert, computer security expert, so he applied cryptography to this problem of protecting sources.
So, WikiLeaks then broke onto the scene pretty quickly, started getting a lot of attention, because of the high-value sources that WikiLeaks was getting in relation to China, Kenya, Peru, really big, significant publications. And WikiLeaks, there are many ways to see WikiLeaks, but you could see WikiLeaks as, Julian's described it as a rebel library of Alexandria.
The approach of WikiLeaks is to publish, insofar as is possible, original source documents, and that means that WikiLeaks transcends journalism, in the sense that WikiLeaks material has been able to be used in, for example, legal cases, presented in evidence. Even the UK Supreme Court has used WikiLeaks cables as evidence in relation to a case relating to the Chagos Islands; and before the European Court of Human Rights, in relation to a CIA rendition case, which was won, partly thanks to those WikiLeaks documents.
So, Julian is indicted in relation to five specific publications in 2010. These were supplied by a US Army whistleblower, called Chelsea Manning. Chelsea Manning was convicted in 2013 to 35 years in prison. During this time, the US had opened an investigation in relation to WikiLeaks for these publications. They relate to the wars in Afghanistan, in Iraq, US Embassy Cables, Guantanamo Bay Detainee Camp, and in relation to a video called Collateral Murder.
Peter McCormack: This is the helicopter killing of the Reuters journalist?
Stella Moris: Yes. About 12 civilians were killed and 2 children were severely injured, and that video depicts a war crime, at least one war crime, possibly two. So, President Obama, at the end of his tenure, basically he freed Chelsea Manning the day before he left office, so Manning served seven years.
The Obama Administration, the Department of Justice, announced that they were not going to prosecute Julian over the Chelsea Manning leaks, because Julian is a publisher, not a hacker. That was the statement by the DOJ Spokesperson, whose name is Matthew Miller; the tweets are on Twitter, anyone can check. The Obama Administration was not willing to prosecute Julian, because of the precedent that that would set for the press generally. Basically, there's no way to prosecute Julian over these publications, because to do so would mean that you are setting a precedent that means that you can prosecute journalists for doing journalism.
What happened, the Trump Administration came in and the Trump Administration had a very adversarial relationship to the press, and they wanted a precedent, they wanted a case to be able to go after the press. So, it wasn't that the Trump Administration went and decided to indict Julian in spite of the risk that that would pose to press freedom and to the First Amendment, they did it because of it, because that would enable them to do so, because the rest of the press was also in their sites.
Now the Biden Administration is continuing that prosecution. Why is Julian being prosecuted? It's partly because of an increasingly aggressive approach to trying to chill the press, chill openness. It's kind of a reaction to both Wikileaks and the Snowden publications. If you think about it, back in the 2000s, the idea of an open government and transparency and so on, that was mainstream, buzzwords. No one talks about transparency anymore, and Wikileaks is the expression of the right to truth, to open government, to transparency at its strongest.
What we've seen in a backlash now going in the other direction, and in tandem with other restrictions on our freedom of speech, government trying to legislate on social media platforms, pushing against encryption and so on. It's all part of a package of an attack on our freedoms, and Julian's case is not just symbolic of this tendency, it is a wedge through which they're intending to really drive home these changes.
Peter McCormack: Yeah. One of the interesting things in following the case is that Julian doesn't have universal support, even though he has a lot of support, and I've heard this discussed quite a bit that it doesn't matter what you think of Julian, you should separate your personal opinions of Julian and understand what's at stake here. And I think that's one of the bigger points, right, Gabe?
Gabriel Shipton: Yeah. I guess one of the things about Julian's support is Julian has suffered years and years of demonisation. Whether it's sex allegations or allegations that he was a bad house guest in the Ecuadorian Embassy, or things like that, but it's years and years of demonisation that have allowed this prosecution to come about. Without the removing of Julian's support, this prosecution wouldn't have been able to move forward as easily as it had.
I often say, if they didn't have Julian to do this, then they would have to create one, because the aim is, as Stella was saying, you see, especially in the US, the First Amendment is becoming this walled garden, it's going tighter and tighter. You can see on the social media platforms cutting back, cancel culture, things like that. And with what's happening to Julian, it's this national security reporting saying this indictment has made basically even possessing classified information under this indictment illegal.
When I was in the US a couple of weeks ago, we were talking to reporters there, people from the Intercept or Washing Post, and they all have classified information on their desks, every single one of them. So, under this indictment, they all could be potentially prosecuted under the Espionage Act. So, that's how broad this attack on First Amendment and press freedom is.
Peter McCormack: This is also a global issue right now. We have similar issues with the UK. We have very, very weak free speech laws, we have quite strong libel laws. You, as a lawyer, would be perfectly aware of how certain Russian oligarchs have used the UK courts to silence journalists. I know in Australia, there's certain questions about press freedom. I think Canada has highlighted itself as somewhere that has significant issues with press freedom. So, it's not only an issue and symbolic for the US, but I think it's symbolic for a global problem.
Gabriel Shipton: Yes, and what's happening to Julian is this extraterritorial application of US law. So, part of this, like you say, it's a global problem, like a reporter in Germany could potentially be whacked with an extradition order for reporting about the US secrets or confidential information. So, in that respect, in terms of its globalness, there is that element too, the extraterritorial application of US law.
I think generally, you're right, we are going down that track, and Julian's case is at the forefront of that fight, which is what makes it so important. It really isn't about Julian, the person, it's about what's at stake for everybody else.
Stella Moris: Yeah, the case against Julian is so absurd. I mean, consider as an example a mirror case. The BBC published police documents from the Chinese police about the Uyghur detention camps. Imagine now that the Chinese DOJ would send an extradition request for the British journalist who did that report. That's what's happening here. Julian is not an American citizen, he's an Australian, he was working from the UK, he was invited to the UK by The Guardian. Julian has no obligations towards a foreign government, just like no British journalist has an obligation towards the Turkish Government to keep Turkish secrets, especially if those secrets reveal the Turkish Government committing crimes. So, the whole proposition is completely absurd and outrageous.
Of course, the US is a close ally to the UK. The US Government is the UK's closest ally; that's the power dynamic that's going on.
Peter McCormack: Well, I think we've become more of a US lacky, and the reason I say that is my understanding of the law, and you will be more versed in this than I am, but it's very much a one-way treatment of the law. So, am I right in understanding that we've removed the requirement for something to be just, and now it comes down to, "Is this reasonable under US law, and if so, then we would extradite somebody?" So, we've lost our British principles of what is just and what is unjust, which is very un-British; did I get that right?
Stella Moris: Pretty much. I mean, the Extradition Treaty between the US and the UK was rushed through in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and it was rushed through. Basically, the excuse at the time was a lot of the terrible legislation was that, "Terrorism requires a loosening of our safeguards, and we need to make it easier to extradite people to the United States", and they did that by approving a very unequal treaty between the US and the UK.
So, Julian's fighting this extradition through a very weak mechanism. For example, the US doesn't have to show a prima facie case. They just have to say basically, "We want him", and there's no test on the evidence. We can't cross-examine the prosecutors on the case on their claims. It's a set of very technical questions about whether the bars to extradition that are in the Extradition Act apply or not. And in fact, without getting into too much detail, the very extradition is a breach of the US-UK Extradition Treaty.
Julian is accused under the US 1917 Espionage Act, he's not accused of espionage per se, but the wording of that act is so broad and so vague that it says, "If you receive, possess and communicate information that the US says potentially could harm national security", without defining national security, "then you could be charged and convicted of espionage", and 170 years of the 175-year indictment relate to this Espionage Act, and those are the charges.
Peter McCormack: Does the vagueness allow them to essentially persecute Julian whilst not going after New York Times' reporters? Is that why the hypocrisy can exist, because it's so broad? Because, if you hold the same bar that Julian is being extradited for, you could also be charging journalists who work at Washington Post.
Gabriel Shipton: They've tried to use it against The New York Times.
Peter McCormack: Oh, they have?
Gabriel Shipton: Yeah, they tried to use it during the Ellsberg case back in the 1970s. So this Espionage Act, it's 1917 law, brought in to basically lock up people who were against World War I. So over time, it's been broadened and repurposed. So it started off, seditious people going after people who were against the war, World War I. Then for a long time, it was never used again. Then, when Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers leaker, leaked a huge raft of documents about the Vietnam War that eventually led to the end of the Vietnam War, and also formed part of Nixon's impeachment, his case, that's when it was repurposed and gone on to look at whistleblowers.
So now, you have the Espionage Act that can go after whistleblowers. His prosecution was thrown out, because it was found out that his psychologist was being spied on, so his case was thrown out. But during that time, they attempted to use it against The New York Times as well for publishing that information, which The New York Times, I think they managed to fight and it got thrown out. But over the next period, and particularly under Obama, it got re-energised again, the Espionage Act, and there were multiple prosecutions against whistleblowers.
I think four or five, even more, most recently, Daniel Hale, who blew the whistle on the civilian drone killings under the Obama Administration, he was convicted under the Espionage Act, but it's now being broadened to go after people who publish the information. And so, they're trying again. They failed once and now they're trying again to go after publishers with this law.
Stella Moris: US Constitutional Lawyers have been warning since that Pentagon Papers case, 51 years ago, that the Espionage Act could one day be used by the US Government to go after publishers. So, this scary prediction that has been discussed for the past 51 years, has come to pass now, with the prosecution indictment of Julian. It's unprecedented. It is the first time that they go after a publisher for journalistic activity.
Julian received the information from a source, which was Chelsea Manning. He performed the role of a journalist. But if you start treating the source and the publisher as the same, which is what this does, then you are making journalism a crime and you are saying, to your question, "Is the problem that this is so broad?" the issue is that they cannot distinguish. This is what the Obama Administration was saying. They cannot distinguish what Julian did from what The New York Times did in this very publication. So, when you set this precedent, it means that The New York Times knows that at any moment, the DOJ can prosecute The New York Times for the WikiLeaks publications.
It is not just the legal precedents that it sets, that you can now go after publishers for doing journalism, it is the fact that the US Government can chill the press in the knowledge that they know that editors everywhere are looking at this case and going, "Well, we can't publish that, because they're going to use the Assange precedent against us". They're getting leaks all the time, but if a Chelsea Manning goes to any journalist nowadays, are they going to publish? You'd be mad. Look at what they're doing to Julian for publishing. No one's going to put their life on the line anymore to be treated the way Julian is, and that is having a serious chilling effect on the press.
That's why The New York Times and The Washington Post and The Guardian, publications that don't necessarily have much personal sympathy for Julian, have come out to condemn this prosecution, because they understand --
Peter McCormack: The implications for themselves?
Stella Moris: Yeah, and I'm sure they're receiving things they're not publishing, because their lawyers are telling them, "Now, with the Assange case, you cannot do this, you cannot publish, because we are going to end up in a legal battle and criminal prosecutions and you might go to prison".
Peter McCormack: So, why do these press publications not have much sympathy for Julian?
Stella Moris: The Guardian in the UK invited Julian to come to London to publish these Chelsea Manning leaks in corporation, in partnership. Now, The Guardian, it's pretty clear that they all have an obligation to Julian as a source, and have seriously violated that duty that they have to protecting their source; but WikiLeaks was also their partner, because WikiLeaks is a publisher, and there was a lot of rivalry with WikiLeaks, because WikiLeaks came onto the scene and just had the biggest scoops.
The WikiLeaks publications about the Iraq and Afghan Wars, the US Embassy cables, they are still being cited daily in news reports, because it is in 250,000 cables of every country in the world, journalists are mining them constantly. So, Julian had these massive innovations to how to do journalism, and published at scale. It was just at the beginnings of data journalism, but WikiLeaks really harnessed the potential of data journalism, by entering into partnerships with other media organisations to mine the information, to put into context, and to publish together.
I think The Guardian saw Julian and WikiLeaks as a big reputational rival, because Julian was also very critical of how the legacy media did journalism. WikiLeaks' approach, and this was in the deal that they had with the other media organisation was, "Yes, you can publish WikiLeaks material, but we will publish the original document alongside your report". It's what Julian called "scientific journalism".
Yes, journalists should analyse material, but there should also be some kind of peer review. You have to present what you're basing your analysis on, so that others can look at it and check that the analysis is sound. This is a huge challenge to the gatekeeper role of the media, and they were really threatened by it. And of course, when these publications were under way, Julian would go onto CNN, or whatever, and say, "Look at The Guardian. They've reported on this cable, but they've ignored this important fact and it's really questionable the way they've reported this thing".
They didn't like that, and they didn't like that Julian was such a big figure all of a sudden in what was considered -- it's quite a closed domain, especially in the UK, the journalistic world is pretty back-stabbing, and it's a closed environment. And here was Julian, and everyone wanted to know -- he had a massive profile, bigger than any of the editors of The Guardian, The New York Times, and so on, so there was a lot of rivalry and jealousy, I think. But also, Julian did things differently, and he was forcing innovation into journalism.
Then, there's also a whole lot of other stuff. The Guardian broke its original agreement with Julian, then they revealed the password of the cables as a heading in the book that they wrote about WikiLeaks, and then that led to the publication of the unredacted cables online.
Peter McCormack: Which compromised potential people in the field?
Stella Moris: Well, WikiLeaks had been rolling out the cable publication over a nine-month period, entered into partnership with about 100 media organisations; five initially, the five big ones, and then rolled it our country by country, and it was a huge, enormous, laborious process. In the meantime, The Guardian was selling film rights to Hollywood for a terrible film that no one remembers, and I can't even remember it.
Peter McCormack: There was a film?
Stella Moris: Yes! It was a box office flop. But The Guardian basically, to set the narrative, because they had already fallen out with Julian and violated the original agreement, put out this book, and then tried to talk about everything they knew about Julian and cast him in a negative light, and so on; but they rushed it out. And one of the things they did in violation of that original agreement was to disclose a password that Julian had given to the cables. This password was very, very long, it's a whole sentence. I think it's, "A collection of history of the world from 1977 to the present day", okay, altogether with special characters and so on.
They also said, "And Julian told us that we should include a word salt that you should never write down. That word is 'diplomatic' and you insert it between 'world' and 'history'". I'm not accurate on the actual password, but they put it in the book. They put it in the book, the word that they should never write down; I mean, it was complete idiocy. Okay, so they did that. And then eventually, the encrypted file with the diplomatic cables, which had the strongest possible encryption, was completely unbreakable, were it not for The Guardian publishing as its title heading this password, including the salt that should never have been written down.
Peter McCormack: Well done, The Guardian.
Stella Moris: Yeah. So, The Guardian's approach to Julian has a lot of self-interest in preserving their side of the narrative, which has -- The Guardian, its institutional, editorial position is of course that Julian should not be extradited, that he should be freed, and so on. There's been a change of management. The Guardian through the years has also done terrible things, like pushing the fabricated stories around Russiagate, and so on. They even published, as a front-page story, that Paul Manafort had visited Julian in the Embassy three times. That is one of the most embarrassing journalistic fails in history.
Gabriel Shipton: A complete lie.
Stella Moris: Yeah, it's a complete fabrication. Not one visit, nothing. So, The Guardian has failed and also allowed itself to be instrumentalised, basically, in a smear campaign against Julian in the lead-up to his arrest.
Peter McCormack: I mean, a lot of people consider The Guardian a bit of a shit rack here, so you don't have anyone on this side of the table who really particularly cares for that newspaper. So, with regards to the extradition, we've talked about the judge originally rejecting it, the US Government appealed, it came down to the Home Secretary, Priti "Darth Vader" Patel, who I had no confidence for you, I'm afraid, once I knew she was making the decision, because she's quite an authoritarian.
Gabriel Shipton: Did you hear what she did? So, when she signed, she signed the extradition order and The Wall Street Journal reported that she had asked the US DOJ for an acknowledgement like, "Thank you for signing"; she'd requested a thank you from the US DOJ for signing the extradition order, and that was leaked to The Wall Street Journal. But the US DOJ refused to give her the thank you, but what they did send was the ex-Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, over to the UK for a photo opportunity with the UK Home Secretary.
Peter McCormack: Really?
Gabriel Shipton: Yeah. So, this came out, she tweeted it out, "Look at me, here's me with Mike Pompeo, ex-CIA Director, after I signed off on Julian Assange's extradition the week before".
Peter McCormack: I mean, she's a huge piece of shit, and I don't mind saying that. I will get told off by my producers, but I think she's a piece of shit, and I had very little hope once I realised it would be her giving the decision, because I think she's an authoritarian, and I also think she's a career politician and she has her eyes on bigger prizes. But so be it, I doubt she listens to this podcast, but if you do, Priti, you're a piece of shit!
So, where are we now with appeals; is it going up to the Supreme Court?
Stella Moris: No, the next stage is the High Court. So basically, just to simplify, yes, Julian won initially. The US then basically changed the goal posts, wrote a letter to the UK Government. The letter is ridiculous.
Peter McCormack: "What are you doing, UK, we're in charge?"
Stella Moris: Yeah, basically they gave the UK an excuse to approve it, and now we're appealing that decision, the decision to reverse it. So, we're basically now at the stage where we're appealing all the substantive press freedom arguments, the fact this is politically motivated, that he's accused under a political offence under the Espionage Act, but also the abuse of process that the US has engaged in, in order to pursue this prosecution. So, while Julian was inside the Embassy, he was there for seven years --
Stella Moris: They spied on him. But they didn't just spy on him; the security company that was working inside the Embassy is registered in Spain, and now we know a lot of things about that, because as soon as Julian was arrested, a couple of workers who were working in that security company went initially to El País, and then went to the police, and basically reported on all the illegal activity that they had been engaged in, whistleblowers from the security company. Now, the CEO of that company is facing criminal charges in Spain.
Peter McCormack: Good.
Stella Moris: They raided his home, they seized hard drives and equipment, they found two guns with the serial number filed off. These are sinister characters, and it turns out these whistleblowers disclosed that they were receiving instructions from the CIA, the CIA that Mike Pompeo was heading up at the time. Those instructions included hiding microphones under the fire extinguishers inside the Embassy; this was without Ecuador's knowledge, obviously. So, they were actually working for the CIA inside the Ecuadorian Embassy, to spy on Julian and spy on his lawyers, spy on his legal meetings.
The recordings from his meetings were then physically transported to the United States and handed over to the handlers. But not just that; they were instructed, for example, to obtain the DNA of our six-month-old baby, at the time he was six months old, by stealing a soiled nappy in order to get the DNA. They followed me, followed my mum, photographed the legal notes of lawyers who were visiting, stole medical notes from the doctors that were visiting Julian and examining him, and so on.
Peter McCormack: But this is far more extreme than the case you brought up previously, where they were spying on, was it --
Gabriel Shipton: Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, exactly right.
Peter McCormack: I mean, this is significantly increased scope on that.
Gabriel Shipton: Yeah.
Stella Moris: There's an incredible investigation that was published in September last year, and the three investigative journalists based in DC, no personal sympathy towards Julian from them. They're national security journalists, investigative journalists, and they published this story; they had over 30 sources in the CIA and National Security Council, who had served under the Trump Administration, who said that Mike Pompeo was obsessed with Julian, obsessed with WikiLeaks, and obsessed with taking down WikiLeaks, and that it became top priority for the CIA.
Imagine. This is because a small publisher publishes stuff that embarrasses the US Government, and WikiLeaks had published Vault 7, which was a leak of CIA handbooks about their hacking tools. So, Mike Pompeo was heading up the CIA and was absolutely enraged by this publication, and then basically turned the CIA into his revenge tool against WikiLeaks. That meant a range of different actions, ranging from planting stories, that were false, in the media, and we saw a lot of that across 2017, 2018, leading up to Julian's arrest; basically preparing the political ground to weaken his political support, to cast all sorts of falsehoods around his character and reputation, and so on, basically to create this effect that we were talking about, that it doesn't matter what you think about Julian. What do people think about Julian; where does that come from? That's been shaped, and that --
Peter McCormack: It shifted for some people.
Stella Moris: Well, during that time, the CIA, one of its main functions has been its utilisation of press, since the beginning, shaping perception, shaping propaganda, and there was a massive propaganda effort in relation to Julian and WikiLeaks in order to silence him and imprison him. That was the end goal. There were also plans to kidnap him from the Embassy, plans to assassinate him, specific plans about poisoning.
What's incredible is that you have the Spanish case, and these whistleblowers we were talking about, "Yeah, we were talking about how to poison him", and how to leave the door open so that deniably, they could take him out of the Embassy and kidnap him. And then you have the CIA story from DC, talking about how Mike Pompeo was ordering sketches and options about how to take out Julian, how to assassinate him, how to kidnap him, and so on.
Gabriel Shipton: This is the same Mike Pompeo who had a photo opportunity with Priti Patel, who had a signed off on the extradition order a couple of weeks ago, the same person.
Peter McCormack: Yeah. But it's very Putinesque in strategy to assassinate people on foreign soil?
Gabriel Shipton: Yeah, you wouldn't expect it in a western democracy, no one expects these things to happen. But in Julian's case, they do.
Peter McCormack: That was a significant change in the scope for me, when it was revealed that they were looking at options to assassinate him. That for me was like, "Hold on, holy --" I know the US Government and the UK Government have a particularly chequered history, but that is a significant change. That is something you expect from the Russian state, the Chinese state. But like you say, for a western liberal democracy to be considering the murder of a journalist, a truth-teller, on foreign soil, I mean this is the strategy of Putin, this is what he does.
Stella Moris: And, the Trump Administration, there were people within the National Security Council who then became sources for this story, who were saying this was out of control.
Peter McCormack: But if they're looking to extradite him, surely this would form part of your appeal, that he's a person whose life -- there's a credible threat against his life now?
Stella Moris: Yes, so this is one of the arguments that we're going to introduce, that wasn't previously part of our arguments, because it hadn't been published yet. You're talking about an extradition to the country that has plotted Julian's assassination. This is, by any standard, not permissible. The case is completely outrageous, for the reasons I've explained before. He's being prosecuted for journalism, and countries all around the world are shouting at the US and the UK for the incredible hypocrisy when they're talking about press freedom; and at the same time, they have Julian in prison for years on end.
Peter McCormack: The wheels of justice here move very slowly. When will the appeal be heard? Depending on how that goes, what are the next steps? Could this drag out for a few more years here?
Stella Moris: No, we're expecting it to be now a matter of months, not years, not a year, less than a year; probably six months or so.
Peter McCormack: And, God forbid that appeal fails, what happens after that?
Stella Moris: Julian's indicted in the eastern district of Virginia in a court where no national security defendant has ever won. He is prosecuted under the Espionage Act and there is no public interest defence under the Espionage Act. It means that because they've repurposed basically a spy law to a journalist, he has no way of mounting a defence. If you take away the ability of a journalist to justify why they've published something and you make publishing it a crime, then it's automatically a given that he will be convicted.
Then, aside from that, the US Government says that because he's not a US citizen, he does not enjoy First Amendment rights. I mean, imagine this, they're applying their criminal laws extraterritorially to a foreigner who was publishing abroad, and then they say, "And when you come here, you won't be able to invoke constitutional rights, because you're not from here".
Peter McCormack: Yeah, okay. In terms of support, with people listening, how can they support? In terms of legal funds, how is that going; in terms of other support, how can people help you really?
Gabriel Shipton: Well, in the UK, we're about to launch on a tour with a film that I've produced along with Adrian Devant, which is a film about John and Stella's fight to free Julian. What we're trying to do with that film is really attack, go after this demonisation of Julian and show the Julian that we know, that we experience, that his friends and family know, this gentle, kind genius. So, we are launching that film all around the UK this month, so you can come and see that film. You can go to the website, ithaka.movie, if you're in the UK. I think we've got 24 cinemas around the UK; we're adding more and more.
If you're in the US, we're always asking people to speak to their congresspeople, speak to their representatives, let them know how they care about this case, what it means to them, what it means to their First Amendment rights, their democratic rights.
Peter McCormack: Do you have any support within Congress? You mentioned earlier that there has been some support from people in the UK Government.
Gabriel Shipton: Yeah, so I think there were 24 MPs who signed onto a letter to the Biden Administration from within the UK Government. In Congress, we're making progress there. John and I have travelled there about five times over the last year and a half. We are making progress there, we are seeing congresspeople there, both on the left and the right, who care about this issue. So, we are building -- there's groups, there's parliamentary groups all over the world.
So, in Australia, there's a group of 31 parliamentarians, and that includes the ex-Deputy Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister, who in Australia has actually spoken out and said, "Enough's enough", and that he can't see what purpose is served in bringing Julian home. So, we're getting this worldwide support from parliaments all over the world, and we're building that in the US as well.
One interesting one is the President of Mexico, President Obrador. He made a statement a couple of days ago saying that, "If Julian's extradited, the US should send the Statue of Liberty back to Paris"! So, all around the world, people are speaking out about this. Another one is China. So, the Chinese Foreign Ministry is always saying -- the US's Secretary Blinken, President Biden, they're always trying to say, "Look at China's human rights record, look at their record on press freedoms". Now, the Chinese Government, every time something comes up like that they say, "Look, you've got a journalist and a publisher in prison. You can't say anything to us. Have a look at yourself first".
So, this is a worldwide movement that's growing, and we're really working on it in the US as well, and have been making some progress. But it really is about people getting in touch with their representatives and letting them know they care, because otherwise taking part in democracy basically is what we ask people to do. And voting is not enough; you just have to keep hammering away at them, you can't just do it once every four years.
So, those are a couple of easy things to do. There is a defence fund that they're running in the UK, which we can get you for the show notes, and yeah, that's basically it. And, while we tour around the UK, we'll be asking people the same thing; talk to your MPs, let them know that this is something you care about, because they need votes, and so they have to act if their constituents want them to.
Peter McCormack: This is a question I really would want to ask Julian himself, so you may not be able to answer this, but it's something I was discussing with my brother on the way down, and we're kind of intrigued by the answer, because I've not heard it discussed. But knowing everything he knows now and everything he's been through, I think I know the answer, but do you think he would have done everything the same?
Stella Moris: If you think about where things were at 12 years ago, we were in a different world. Anyone you would have asked, "Is the US going to imprison Assange; are they going to prosecute him?" anyone would have said, "Impossible". We are in a much more dangerous world now, the surveillance powers of the state, the attack on free speech, the attack on the press. I don't think anyone could have anticipated this.
Julian is, above all, a free speech activist, and his presence is so important in the debate in just being able to comment on these issues. His absence is a huge loss to anyone who cares about our freedoms, about free speech, about democratic accountability, and I don't think people need to understand the ins and outs of the legal case. What this is, it's a political persecution, it's politically motivated, it is a vindictive attack on a truth-teller who's only done what -- he's basically put into practice our liberties as they are defined in the law. He represents democracy and freedom at its strongest and they've put him in prison.
It's in everyone's interest that Julian is freed. It's a disgusting injustice that demeans our democracies and has a real effect on our freedoms, because it sets a precedent. What they're doing to Julian, they will do; it's not just that they can do, they will do to others, it's a matter of time. And also just the human aspect. I encourage everyone to look at videos of Julian on YouTube, of him speaking, not what people say about him, of him, because then you really see Julian's true character.
He's a very thoughtful, compassionate person, who is really trying to address and think about how to solve problems of injustice. He's a visionary and this fight is the press freedom fight of our generation, but it is also the most important fight generally for our liberties.
Peter McCormack: That's a brilliant way to close out, but I will ask you just a couple more things. Just in case people don't check the show notes, any specific web addresses you want them to go to?
Gabriel Shipton: So they can go to dontextraditeassange.com; that's for the UK, and assangedefense.org in the US.
Stella Moris: And follow Gabriel and me on Twitter.
Peter McCormack: Absolutely.
Stella Moris: We are avid tweeters and I have open DMs, so any questions…
Peter McCormack: Are there any campaigns or protests planned?
Gabriel Shipton: Those will be on the websites. What's the one coming up?
Stella Moris: Yeah, there's a human chain that's going to be I think on 8 October, the date might change, to go around Parliament. I think we're still working out the details of that.
Peter McCormack: Interesting.
Stella Moris: You can sign up to be one of the parts of the chain, and there are protests and they'll be announced on that website, or through our Twitters.
Gabriel Shipton: Yeah, we have Assange groups all over the US, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Minneapolis, all over the place.
Stella Moris: And there are newsletters that you can sign up to.
Peter McCormack: Great. Well, listen, you have my full support. Any time you want to come on the show, I mean Gabe knows, anytime he wants to come on the show and talk about this, it's an open invite permanently. I sympathise with you. I am still optimistic and hopeful for you. Have you managed to get him a skateboard yet at Belmarsh?!
Stella Moris: Julian has -- he got a laptop after a year of asking, in order to review his legal notes, but the keys are glued down and they removed all the text editing software.
Peter McCormack: They're fucking with him.
Stella Moris: Yeah. But the guards, many of the guards are sympathetic, the prisoners they say, "You shouldn't be here".
Peter McCormack: Does he get on with other prisoners?
Stella Moris: For the most part, but there are people who are also very disturbed who are in there, and I worry about him. There are murders as well as suicides in there. It's a terrible, terrible place.
Peter McCormack: Well, I apologise on behalf of my country, I'm sorry we have a Home Secretary in the likes of Priti Patel. There are other people who maybe historically would have been in that role who would have more integrity with regard to this, and I'm embarrassed that my country has done this. But like I say, you have my full support. You can call me, text me anytime, anything you need, anything shared out, anything published, you have my full support. I consider Gabe a friend, and now I've got to know you, which is great. And, yeah, anything you want, please get in touch. And anyone listening, please do check out these show notes; let's give all the support we can towards Julian.
Thank you very much and take care, and all the best to the kids.
Stella Moris: Thanks.
Gabriel Shipton: Thanks, Peter.
