Topic: The call for Julian Assange || The WikiLeaks Manifesto - We all should read it (Read 2127 times)

Glenn Greenwald is pro-kremlin troll (due to many well respected people) who justify russian army and tries to accuse ukrainian one. As a witness of russian action I can consider Glenn Greenwald as a Putin whore, and anyone who read and trust him - as Useful idiot.

The same problem with Julian Assange: He hated USA so much that step-by-step turned to be ruskie-chinesee whore. No no empathy for him. I'm not glad about what happened to him, but as it said in russian proverb: "Пoмep Hикoдим - нy и XУЙ c ним"

And yeah, a little obituary to Assange from a good russian and my good friend (yeah, in Russia still a lot of honest and brave people who figthing against kremlin imperialism and Z-ombie curse):

https://t.me/RottenKepkenChannel/2965

https://t.me/RottenKepkenChannel/17818

https://t.me/RottenKepkenChannel/14051

T,e: Бoкo Xapaм Tyдeй == Russia Today
Why Boko Haram? Because RT pushing takes not to different to those which pushing Boko Haram (at least i think so. Never asked him about it)

Seems like the thing exemplary punishment is both being attempted and actually accomplished in Julian's case.

The process is the punishment in this case as well (book by the same name describing regular criminal proceedings in such a way).

Ross Ulbricht seems to have been suffering a similar ongoing outcome of "exemplary punishment."

Two words:  Exemplary punishment.

The level they are trying to hunt down Assange is unprecedented and relentless. But how is it diferent from the Sudis killing Khashoggi? At the end the US is just killing Assange slowly, but it should be viewed in the same way. It's a systematic crackdown of the old school hackers that has been going on for years done by the US.

Of course, if we disagree with the inability of the UK government to stand up to obviously bogus matters that really seem to arise to the level of overreaching - there is seemingly a bit of a whimpiness in the way the standards are discussed in terms of findings of whether their would be oppressiveness or not, and so for sure there is a difference in the two statements.. and those kinds of failures to find (or evidence fails to support such a finding) statements are common for courts to seem to get out of responsibilities.

For sure, I have not studied the evidence sufficiently to figure out what the evidence supports or not, even though from what information that I have come across through the years, those kinds of findings of lack of evidence of oppressiveness do not really seem to add up.   Many of us likely realize that however much he has been held (even if a lot of it was not even incarceration, officially) has likely already sufficiently been enough punishment for any kind of supposed crime that may have been committed (and I am not even willing to concede that part), and for sure both he and many others who had been vocalizing the free flow of information have been muzzled (considerably oppressed).  The powers that be remain quite scared of Julian - even though he has already become a lot less physically / mentally able to even muster up  a fight, but surely they want to shut up anyone who might attempt to follow in his footsteps.

As we all know, any appeal would be purely symbolic, and have absolutely no chance of success... given that the extradition approval itself was purely symbolic and has been utterly inevitable all along.


Does the distinction between "have not found that it would be oppressive" and "have found that it would not be oppressive" provide the UK with the semblance of a defence when, inevitably, he's mistreated in the US?

I can do no better here than to quote the conclusions of indefatigable Glenn Greenwald:

Several months have passed since more news arrived about Julian Assange. And it's not good news...

On June 17th, 2022, the British home secretary Priti Patel approved the extradition of Julian USA. According to Guardian, Patel said that they had "“not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Mr Assange". And, of course, Australian government still does not do anything to help its citizen.

After this decision was taken, Julian had the right to try to appeal it, within 14 days. At the moment it's unknown if Julian made the appeal or it status.

---

Meanwhile, the ones which are still loyal to Assange made another documentary about Julian. Film's name is Ithaka (more information here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15066072/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0). The movie depicts Julian's most recent struggles and his attempts to avoid the extradition to US. If it matters, movie's producer is Gabriel Shipton, Julian's brother. Many remarkable figures appear during the documentary, such as Julian's father, Julian's wife or Daniel Ellsberg -- the whistleblower which was sentenced to 115 years in jail, in 1973, for revealing the Pentagon Papers. I highly recommend you all to watch this documentary!

You can watch a trailer here: https://vimeo.com/637431702.

I also added Ithaka to Issues of Note section from OP.

Also, for those interested in watching a documentary about Daniel Ellsberg and Pentagon Papers, I recommend you this movie: The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. You can watch the full documentary on YouTube, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRFVwpI40jM.

Almost a year passed since Julian won his right to not be extradited to US, yet he remained in prison all this time. US prosecutors said they will appeal the Court's decision but, for various reasons (which are unknown to me) the appeal started only at the end of October.

In summer, Julian's lawyers tried, and failed, to stop US from expanding the extradition appeal. As far as I know, in any country, if you want to appeal a decision of a Court then you have a certain amount of time to do so. This amount may vary, from a few days to a month (probably), but to expand the time for an appeal with almost 1 year -- this is something I never heard of! Even the decision of the Court taken during summer, allowing more time to US prosecutors for making the appeal for extraditing him is something unthinkable!

Yet time passed and the appeal started at the end of October and today high court took the decision that Julian can be extradited to US.

Based on Guardian's presented material, I find that judge's decision was itself a chaotic one, as the judge ruled that he can be extradited to US based on the fact that US authorities ensured that Julian won't be sent to a "highly restrictive prison", thus his detention regime would be a - how to say? - "manageable" one. Apparently, the judge which previously denied his extradition did so also taking into account that he could be sentenced in very bad conditions in US, conditions which his health could not endure.

But since "fellow US prosecutors" ensured the new judge that Julian's treatment will not be a bad one in US prison -- then there is no reason to not extradite him, right? /s

I wrote the above sentence with highest degree of sarcasm I can have, regarding such court decisions. Which, in my opinion, are based on nothing. It sounds like they really needed a motive to be able to extradite him, thus they made a huge brainstorming about what legal reasons they can invoke for permitting the extradition. Something like: "oh, he will be placed in a nice prison? He won't have a hard life there? Then there you go - you can have him! Case closed!".

Maybe a last sign of ration was shown by this judge at the end, as high court also ruled, according to Guardian, that "that the case be remitted to Westminster magistrates court with a direction that a district justice send the case to the secretary of state, who will decide whether Assange should be extradited to the US".

I highly doubt that the secretary of state would (ever) overrule a high court decision. Still, there is a chance. Meanwhile, Julian did all he could and announced he will also appeal this decision. I am wondering how much time he'll have at disposal for making the appeal. Obviously, he will never have one year, as US prosecutors had. Nevertheless, it would also not be his interest to delay the appeal, as he would be remaining in jail even more if he would do that.

All we can do now is to hope that he will win this appeal. And maybe - maybe! - after that he will finally be free.

We, on another side, should never forget all he did for us, as humans, and support his cause! Those who do not know what he did, please read all the materials I presented at the end of OP! Read at least the online available materials. But I also encourage you all to buy his books for truly understand all his efforts... Julian was (and still is) a Cyphperpunk. And his work, together with all the work Cypherpunks did, allow us now to have the Internet and communications the way they are. And by saying this I mean the fact that we can have private and encrypted communications; private and encrypted web surfing; private and encrypted crypto phones (these are some special phones which allow private communications which he mentioned in his book The Unauthorised Autobiography); freedom on Internet; free access to cryptography! Without Cypherpunks's work, without their crypto wars, probably all the Internet and our communications would be subject of total surveillance, as Orwell described in 1984. State surveillance exists, this is undeniable, but Julian and the other Cypherpunks offered us ways - for free - to be able to avoid this surveillance. By supporting one of these extraordinary people we show our respect for what Cypherpunks offered us!

#justiceforassange!

Julian's trial for extradition ended on January 4th, as it was settled. Fortunately, the judge decided he won't be extradited to US. However, this is not a big win, as the court's motivation wasn't based on the journalism's free of speech. The judge decided that Julian's mental health is too low now, that he may attemp to suicide, and an American prison would not protect him from.committing suicide. The decision was taken, Julian will remain in UK, but the case won't make a precedent for other abuses of politics over journalism, due to the Court motivation.

Besides, the US prosecutors can appeal the decision within 14 days and they confirned they'll do it, although, in many's view, it will be in vain. Why in vain? Because (1) Trump may pardon Julian and (2) in case Trump won't pardon him, it is uncertain if Biden will be interested in having Julian extradited to US.

Unfortunately, the judge who denied Julian's extradition also denied his bail, thus he remains behind bars. Probably until the appeal will finish.

The good side is that recently two users sent 8.2 and respectively 4.5 BTC to WikiLeaks, for supporting Julian, according to the Twitter account WhaleAlert. I also tried to contribute to his cause somehow, by buying two of his books (Underground and Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet). It's not much, but it's something...

All in all, it is a great victory for Julian. But the victory is for him as a man, not as a journalist. The courts of law are not yet prepared to allow free speech of journalism, nor to protect journalists from politic oppression. It is obvious that the judge who analyzed Julian's case realized that he did nothing wrong for he constantly exposed the truth and this is why she saved him from being extradited to US, where he could face 175 years of prison. But, at the same time, I believe the judge was afraid to say she denies the extradition for Julian could not be accused of anything for stating only the truth. Instead, she chose to save him saying his mental health is too poor now for living in a US prison. It is good she saved him, but it is bad that she saved just the man Julian Assange, while the journalism is still exposed. Most likely, Julian will have to live all his life in UK now, where he at least knows that he is secure.

Let's see though also what happens after the appeal.

Heads-up about Julian's trial: the trial has ended and the judge announced that the resolution will be published on January 4th, 2021. This means 3 more months in jail for Julian before he finds out if he'll be exyradited to US. While serious press and also UN said it is unfair what's happenig to him, Australian govern still takes no action for its citizen...

Two months later, Julian's trial for extradition in US was started on September 7th. He was accused of 18 charges, 17 of them being linked related to the Espionage Act. If he will be found guilty and extradited to US, he may face 175 years behind bars. I wonder how can any rational judge imagine that a normal human being would live that much for spending 175 years in prison. Excepting the 49 years that he lived already. Maybe the judge believes that Assange is immortal, thus it would be easy for him to get released from prison at the age of 224 years.

Anyway, let's pay attention to the trial and let's see how unfair it will be. I wish I'm wrong, but I am almost sure that the judge is corrupt and the trial is rigged already, as it happened to Ross Ulbricht. Let's hope for the best though.

I don't know all that much about it..


Basically..
I have known/heard of it for years/long time but don't really know.. Kinda disappointed that it hasn't happened.. I'm not an expert on it..  
Expected something to happen back when he was arrested, but nothing..
IDK..

Wouldn't it be better if you provided a link or more than one link, if you are making the claim?  I did google those words, and I got this:

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk00LsWLVpISRwHUvqQjXAxZqJ0sJ5g%3A1594589491526&ei=M4ELX5bZH4TatQaRnIqICA&q=julian+assange+dead+man%27s+switch&oq=julian+assange+dead&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMgIIADoECCMQJzoICAAQsQMQgwE6BAgAEEM6BQgAEIsDOggIABCxAxCLAzoLCAAQsQMQgwEQiwM6BggAEBYQHlC-CliVD2CkJGgAcAB4AIAB7AKIAd8LkgEHMC4yLjMuMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXq4AQI&sclient=psy-ab

Are some links contained therein more credible than others?  Or, do you just accept the whole general theory (speculation) that a deadman's switch might exist in connection to Julian?

A similar theory has been made about Jeffery Epstein, in terms of suspicion that Epstein is still alive because otherwise a deadman's switch would have triggered.

IIRC he is supposed to have a deadmans switch embedded in the BTC blockchain that should dump a hash/password thing along with a link to encrypted files that will dump in the event of his death/kidnapping.. "Insurance Files"

Google "julian assange dead man's switch bitcoin"..

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you meant here. What have you been wondering about? Meaning the part "where TF that supposed BTC blockchain staked deadman switch info dump". What do you mean by "supposed BTC blockchain staked deadman switch info"?

I didn't read all this yet but might later..

I have just been wondering where TF that supposed BTC blockchain staked deadman switch info dump is..

For the elites (governs, law enforcement agecies, even the Church -- at least in the past), speaking the truth was always considered a crime. Do I need to remind what happened also with Galileo Galilei? E pur si muove! Martin Luther King's theses were translated in various languages and as a result the Church excommunicated him.

There is no difference now. Time passed, but speaking the truth is still forbidden.

If telling the truth is a crime we are ruled by criminals.

Months have passed and there are no good news about Julian Assange. Actually, the news are worst: he is facing new charges. His bail was denied, although he is very ill, his extradition trial was postponed from May, 18th to September, 7th (which means he will be in jail for a longer time) and prosecutors also accused him for conspiracies with Anonymous hacker group. Australian govern is still not interested about the life of a countryman.

Excepting all these, I updated the OP with three excelent resources for those interested in learning more about Julian and the benefits he offered to this world:

- two books: The Most Dangerous Man In The World: The Inside Story On Julian Assange And WikiLeaks, written by Andrew Fowler and Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet, by Julian Assange. The second book is a discussion between Julian, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor developer) and Jérémie Zimmermann (co-founder of La Quadrature du Net).
- Underground: The Julian Assange story, which is another movie about Julian, depicting his early career.

Yes, absolutely. I wasn't implying they should be the same thread; yours is completely different. Apologies for any misunderstanding.


Yes. Politicians too often serve themselves rather than the people they represent. This coupled with the short-termism inherent in our democracies erodes trust in both politicians and the political process itself. It is by appealing to the baser instincts of disillusioned voters that demagogues like Trump are able to sweep into power.
I'm going to link out again I'm afraid Quarter of a million people is quite a number, but the anti-Iraq-war protests of 2003 are estimated at up to 10 million demonstrators globally... and although there was some impact in some countries, the protests didn't stop the war.
It is so easy for politicians and the establishment to manipulate voters, that they don't need to take any notice of protests - they will justify it all afterwards, or try to direct the public gaze onto other topics. It is important to shine a bright light on the stuff that governments would prefer to remain hidden. This is why people like Julian Assange are so important - and why the implications his extradition have for the First Amendment in the US are so troubling. Democracy is already on its knees; this could be the blow that kills it.

I was not aware of the other thread. And, anyway, the subjects are different. This one is a call for helping Julian, while JollyGood's is a debate about Julian's current situation, when he is behind bars until the extradition trial is over.

I planned my topic for months. It's writing, close to JollyGood's is just a coincidence.

Coming back to the OP, I don't think "people's voice" will change anything. Nor mass media, unfortunately. Look at the petition for freeing Ross Ulbricht, which was signed already by 250.000 people. This petition was supposed to convince Trump to pardon Ross, as the Justice turned its back to him. So what happened, although a quarter of a million of people asked the president to pardon the man? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Yes, I did know about that, sorry, I should have pointed it out.

The accusation of hypocrisy is an interesting one. It may be a technicality, but I don't think the US is being hypocritical, because that implies some level of concealment of their true motivations and actions. No, the US are quite blatant about all this, it comes from being a global superpower. The UK used to behave the same way a hundred and more years ago, back when we ruled the world. If you are bigger and stronger than everyone else, then there is no need for secrecy or subterfuge; your brute strength already affords you all the advantage that you need. You can be as much of a blunt instrument as you desire.

The term 'special relationship' always makes me wince. I mentioned it in another Assange thread yesterday:

Your example is outstanding! For 2 reasons:

1. This case looks like a copycat to what happened in Romania: an innocent murdered by an US official; the official trial in the country where he / she commited the crime is not allowed; the official goes back to US. A small difference though, at least so far: in your example, the criminal's trial is not over yet. But most likely, she will be free. Why? Because she is the wife of an US official working for the Airforce, because she was a CIA operative, but, most important, for this (quoted from your second link):


Basically, they already set her free!

2. I don't know if you noticed, but in your first link is stated the following:


So the second reason for which your example is outstanding is because this case is connected to the OP, to Assange!!! What were the odds?! Did you notice that in the link?

The US does as it pleases, and everyone else is expected to toe the line. That 2004 case is revealing, but here in the UK we have one from just a few months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn

In this instance, Anne Sacoolas, the (US) wife of a US intelligence officer stationed in the UK, crashed into and killed a motorcyclist. The officer's wife admitted that she was responsible and was driving on the wrong side of the road. She fled the UK under diplomatic immunity, and the US rejected the UK's subsequent extradition request. The UK was "disappointed in this decision which appears to be a denial of justice"...

This is called the double standard if morality. What is the stand of the Australian govern regarding his citizen? Do they try to protect him? Or: do they try to take him back in Australia and take the trial there? No! Why?

---

The following is unknown information for almost all forum members. Maybe just the Romanians know this story.

On December 4th, 2004, 04:30AM local time, the famous Romanian bass player Teo Peter (playing in Compact band) was murdered in a car accident by a drunk US Marine named Christopher Van Goethem. The marine ignored the traffic light and bumped in the car where Teo was present as a passenger. Van Goethem was in his car also with his lover. They were having an affair.

After killing the poor man, the sergeant also fled the premises.

At the moment he was working for the US Embassy, thus having diplomatic immunity.

What happened next? After being captured, US requested his extradition in US, refusing Romanian authorities to take him here in a Court of Law.

What happened in US? The sergeant faced Court Martial but in the end it was stated that he is not guilty for manslaughter charges, nor for adultery (although the adultery accusation was a trivial one compared to the other one). Furthermore, his blood tests concluded he didn't drink alcohool, although he was drunk. Although he admitted he drank a few beers!!! You can read more here or Google the case.

---

This is the double standard if morality: all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

One one hand, US govern interdicts to another govern to judge a crime performed by an American citizen; it also rules he is not guilty. And on the other hand, the same US govern forces to judge on American soil the actions of an Australian citizen, living in UK, in the Ecuadorian Embassy, while this man's govern assists powerless to what happens to Assange.

A military who killed a man is sentenced as not guilty, while Assange, who fought all his life for the freedom of information, faces 175 years in jail!!!

I'm no expert, but my naive understanding is: Assange is accused of hacking into US databases and publishing sensitive security information, thereby 'endangering lives', i.e. a crime against the US and US citizens, so answerable in the US. The UK has an extradition treaty with the US, and for the hearing to go ahead, the judge in the UK just needs to be convinced that the alleged crime is one that might have led to trial here, had it occurred in the UK. There is no consideration of guilt here, merely an assessment of the nature of the alleged crime. The US just needs to convince the UK that there is a case that needs answering. I believe there is something in there whereby the UK won't allow extradition where the accused could face the death penalty, but I don't think the US want the death penalty anyway in this instance...

It may be a flimsy pretext, but in practice that doesn't matter. The UK will perform as instructed.

As i remember, Julian Assange in his last days was mostly against USA, and not against Russia or China. He was even in cooperation with one of the most propagandist channels of Russia - RussiaToday.

I doubt that he was proKremlin, but with 90 % probability he was, as would say Vladimir Lenin,"a useful idiot" in the service of Russia interests.  Noone even with a best intentions can ally with a bloodthirsty maniacs. 

It's hard to say what will happen to him. But nullius pointed out something very important: "By what right does the United States presume jurisdiction over Assange?  He is a not an American citizen, and is thus not generally subject to the personal jurisdiction of American laws.  He is not alleged to have committed any acts within American territorial jurisdiction."

I really wonder how this will be explained during the trial.


That's admirable. 10BTC? Wow! Literally wow!


Hehe, I like that my posts become known for a certain pattern I'll do my best in the future as well. Some cypherpunks retired; other left us for good. But their message lives within us!

I feel the same. He's hugely important, both for what's he's done so far and as a figurehead, but - whether from arrogance or from the unremitting psychological pressure - he has made some stupid decisions. Interesting to compare with Snowden, for example.

He cannot be bought or terrorized, yes. 'Persuaded' is a sub-category of both, and a euphemism.



Bought or terrorized. Arguably 'bought' in the context of the US and any international resistance is a sub-category of terrorized. The threat can be implicit or explicit, but is there. Sanctions are only the start of it.
What does the US want? Wealth or power? Money is nothing but a manifestation of power... with this in mind, looking at a US reeling from the reputational damage caused by Assange and the Wikileaks exposures is very much like looking at a wounded predator. Is the US more annoyed by the actual damage or by the affront, by the fact that someone has the temerity to stand up to their global hegemony? If one man is willing to stand against them, then others will do so. Opposition is a threat and must be suppressed. I think the fact that the US is demanding extradition is quite revealing here; they are not calmly sitting in the background awaiting an impartial outcome, it's a show trial with the outcome predetermined due to US pressure. The US is flexing its muscles very publicly: no, we're not damaged, we're still strong, we're still in control. Bluster and posturing is often indicative of underlying insecurity. Assange has them rattled.


“Prior to your election, our nations had experienced 10 difficult years where you people didn't do exactly what you were god-damned told,” Vice President Mike Pence implied.
Assange was a fool for coming to the UK. I'm from the UK; we're a vassal state of the US. We are the ally who like a good little puppy eagerly does what we're told; we're the country who can be relied upon to send in a few token tanks so that US unilateral intervention in the middle-east can be painted with a veneer of multilateralism. The Ecuadorian embassy stuff was only ever a delay of the inevitable. Ecuador was bound to buckle eventually under US pressure; they aren't Cuba bolstered by the might of a Soviet Union.

I really hope he gets out of this, but I'm not optimistic. There is quite vocal opposition from a First Amendment perspective, but I can't see this having much sway over a president who sees laws as an irritating inconvenience.

I am proud to say that after the U.S. pressured banks to cut off Wikileaks, I stepped up and donated 10 BTC. It wasn't worth a lot then, but it is now.

The whole thing is to silence journalism and Assange is a scapegoat. The deep state wants to punish him for telling the truth.

Thank you, GazetaBitcoin.  This is a classic Gazeta post:  I will need some hours to peruse all your links!

Meanwhile, I will remark on the first thing I noticed:  As usual, the mainstream media is up to the dirty tricks of smear accusations, and cherry-picking the worst images they can find as of some they dislike.

Excepting that in an old self-quote, all images in this post are from Wikimedia Commons.  Although I am not always a fan of Wikimedia, they are a stable source—and they will not be cherry-picking bad-looking images of Assange.  I have linked each image to its page on Wikimedia Commons.  I encourage others to use presentable images of Assange when discussing him:  The Assange who built a powerful fight for freedom, not snapshots grabbed in bad moments after he was been virtually imprisoned for so long.


Although I myself do not agree with Assange about everything, I highly respect for his stand on principle.  It is why he is so hated by the U.S. government:  He cannot be bought, he cannot be terrorized, he cannot be persuaded.  Not unless they can get him bodily under their control.


Speaking of which, the American so-called “prosecution” of Assange raises an issue of world-historical import that I have not seen many others discuss:  By what right does the United States presume jurisdiction over Assange?  He is a not an American citizen, and is thus not generally subject to the personal jurisdiction of American laws.  He is not alleged to have committed any acts within American territorial jurisdiction.  It is only yet another instance of America enforcing international reach for its diktat, on the basis of:  “We have the most guns, we have nukes—and most of all, we have the global poison power of the dollar.”


Quoting from one of the links in OP:


Hmmm...


Thank you, GazetaBitcoin, for your continuing coverage of cypherpunks and the relation thereof to Bitcoin.  To that, I will add a quite decent treatment of that history (with a hyperlink thoughtfully added by me):

Reserved

Maybe many heard about the name of Julian Assange, but only few really know who he is, what he did or what he does now. From these, even less know why he is an emblematic figure in the crypto space.

This topic is a call for help, that's why I posted it in the Beginners & Help board. It's a call for helping Julian!

I planned writing this topic for a while, but from various reasons (the most important being the lack of time) I delayed it. However, a another recent discrediting of the press (in a way or another) determined me to write this thread. The reason behind is less important though. What's important is Julian needs help.

---

The last sentence of this topic is a cautionary tale: "All of us should continue Cypherpunks' work and to fight for freedom!".

The Cypherpunks group emerged initially in 1992 from Eric Hughes, the author of "The Cypherpunk Manifesto", John Gilmore and Timothy May, the author of "The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". From a former meeting in Gilmore's office, a mailing list was born, under the name of Cypherpunks mailing list.

During time, others joined Cypherpunks' fight against the State surveilling the citizens. They eventually reached a number of over 1000 contributors.

Julian Assange was part of the group between 1995 and 2002. His brilliant mind was easily observed by the others. If May, Hughes or Gilmore were focused more on "algorithms for people", on digital cash and on public's access to cryptography (in an era when NSA was fighting with all its powers against that), Assange had a different principle: “Freedom of information is a respected liberal value”.

The WikiLeaks Manifesto, a document less known, unfortunately, contains other words of wisdom from Julian: "Only revealed injustice can be answered; for man to do anything intelligent he has to know what's actually going on".

Since the apparition of Gutenberg's printing press in 1448, which led to the Printing Revolution, elites' power over classified documents decayed constantly. This was one of the first forms of the information decentralization. Julian Assange took it to a whole new level.

And this happened after the launch of WikiLeaks, in 2006.


Sharing a similar thought with Snowden; and even more: trying to help him by recommending him where to settle and where not to settle his new life after betraying the govern; Assange published thousands of classified information from all parts of the world.

His connection to Bitcoin?, some may ask.

After US govern initiated a financial blockade over WikiLeaks' accounts, Julian realized the potential of Bitcoin and intended to accept the new cryptocurrency as a form for donations. The idea put BitcoinTalk on flame at that time:

"Bring it on”, emphasized RHorning.

However, continues Assange, ""Satoshi Nakamoto,” the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin, responded: “No, don’t "bring it on". The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way. I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy. You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage.” [...] Six days later, on 12 December 2010, Satoshi famously vanished from the Bitcoin community, but not before posting this message: “It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet’s nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.”".

As a deep sign of respect for Satoshi and for his work, as Assange stated also (in the previous mentioned link), "WikiLeaks read and agreed with Satoshi’s analysis, and decided to put off the launch of a bitcoin donation channel until the currency had become more established. WikiLeaks’ bitcoin donation address was launched after the currency’s first major boom, on 14 June 2011.".

A sign of respect which is a rara avis nowadays.

But Julian's rely on Bitcoin certainly didn't help just WikiLeaks: it also helped Bitcoin to become more popular; it raised awareness about Satoshi's creation; it brought more and more people on the path opened by Satoshi.

What happened next is known better than the above mentioned history. US govern started to hunt Assange in 2011, and as a response, Julian managed to help himself by asking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy from London. His request was granted in 2012. However, his staying in the embassy was not easy - among others, he never put his step outside the embassy until 2019(!), living almost as an inmate. Between a fabricated accusation of sexual harassment, which was dropped after years by the Swedish govern, and his continuous work for WikiLeaks, Assange also tried to keep his moral and to do his best to avoid the extradition to US, being well aware this would mean if not a death penalty, then at least 175 years behind the bars.

Unfortunately, in 2019 Ecuador ended his asylum, for reasons more or less ridiculous, but it's almost clear that the decision was forced somehow by other secret agencies or by other governs.

At the moment of writing this thread, Julian's trial for extradition has started. During the trial, he is staying in prison.

As I was saying recently, in a previous topic,


It is in our hands also to help Julian. And helping him means to help freedom of information!

I'm not going to say how to offer this help. I'm sure everybody knows, or, at least, has an intuition about that.

There is time for debates and time for action. Debating is dead now.

---

Issues of note:

I also recommend reading the following:
- Nils Melzer's The Trial of Julian Assange: A Story of Persecution - The shocking story of the legal persecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and the dangerous implications for the whistleblowers of the future
- Robert Manne's piece of art The Cypherpunk Revolutionary Julian Assange
- The Most Dangerous Man In The World: The Inside Story On Julian Assange And WikiLeaks, written by Andrew Fowler
- Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet, by Julian Assange. The book is a discussion between Julian, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor developer) and Jérémie Zimmermann (co-founder of La Quadrature du Net)
- Underground, by Suelette Dreyfus & Julian Assange. It is a fascinating book about the rise of Australian hackers and phreakers from 1980s, including the early activity of Julian Assange which, by that time, was known under the nym Mendax
- When Google Met WikiLeaks, by Julian Assange
- The Unauthorised Autobiography, by Julian Assange.

Besides, the following movies are parts of the must watch category:

Ithaka - a documentary showing Julian's struggle to avoid extradition to US
Mediastan: A Wikileaks Road Movie - a WikiLeaks very own documentary - full movie
Risk - a WikiLeaks documentary, directed by Laura Poitras (a friend of Julian Assange) - full movie
The Fifth Estate - a great movie about WikiLeaks
We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks - yet another documentary about WikiLeaks
Underground: The Julian Assange Story - another movie about Julian, depicting his early career.

---

---

Translations (in chronological order):

• Română: Apelul pentru Assange || Manifestul WikiLeaks – Cu toții ar trebui să-l citim, translation by GazetaBitcoin
• Filipino: Ang tawag para kay Julian Assange || Ang Pagmanipesto ng WikiLeaks - Basahin, translation by jeraldskie11
• Polish: Wezwanie do Juliana Assange || Manifest WikiLeaks - Wszyscy powinniśmy go przeczytać, translation by cygan
• Pidgin: De call for Julian Assange || De WikiLeaks Manifesto - Make all of us read, translation by sokani
• Bengali: জুলিয়ানের জন্য ডাক - সবার পড়া উচিৎ, translation by Learn Bitcoin
• French: L'appel pour Julian Assange || Le Manifeste de WikiLeaks - Nous devrions le lire, translation by iwantmyhomepaidwithbtc2
• Urdu: جولین اسانج کی کال || وکی لیکس کا منشور - ہم ک, translation by JunaidAzizi
• Indonesian: Panggilan untuk Julian Assange||Manifesto WikiLeaks-Kita semua harus membacanya, translation by dansus021
• German: Der Aufruf für J. Assange || Das WikiLeaks-Manifest - Wir alle sollten es lesen, translation by cygan
• Russian: Пpизыв Джyлиaнa Accaнжa || Maнифecт WikiLeaks - мы вc, translation by DrBeer