WikiLeaks staff are unable to access or post from the organization’s primary Twitter account or other accounts used by its staff and legal team, according to WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.“These accounts are locked @wikileaks @assangedefence @wltaskforce @assangelegal and cannot be accessed,” Hrafnsson recently tweeted. “They also seem to have been shadow banned. Should we be worried…
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
(Cross-posted from “Information Clearing House” // Editor’s note: Illegally detained Ecuador Vice President Jorge Glas is currently engaged in an over 30-day hunger strike in protest. No reporting of this extremely controversial, historic Ecuadorian political situation is occurring – not anywhere in the nation.)
(Supporters of Julian Assange in Ecuador, including former President Rafael Correa and officials from Correa’s administration, have become targeted for removal and elimination of influence, – suggesting a Trump-Moreno-May plan for extradition of Assange to America for prosecution.)
The Destruction of the Rule of Law
By Rafael Correa
November 20, 2018
an you imagine a “democracy” in which the president handpicks a council that proceeds to dismiss the Constitutional Court, the Judicial Council which oversees the judiciary, the National Electoral Council, the Attorney General, the ombudsman, and all six major regulators (superintendents)?
Unfortunately, that is the current situation in Ecuador. Abusing participatory democracy, and deceiving the public with the complicity of a corrupt press, on February 4 of this year they called an unconstitutional referendum.
Several articles in our constitution stipulate that the Constitutional Court must rule on the legality of any referendum questions, but, given the clear unconstitutionality of several questions, the government knew that a ruling would not go its way and called the referendum by decree. For the first time in its history, Ecuador had a nationwide referendum without a ruling from the Constitutional Court.
With the approval of the tricky and confusing question 3, they seized the so-called Council of Citizen Participation [CPCCS in the Spanish acronym], whose members were selected through national competitions, and which, according to the Constitution of Ecuador, is responsible for overseeing competitions that elect about 150 control authorities. The unconstitutional referendum gave a “Transitory” CPCCS (which I’ll refer to as the CPCCS-T) the “power” to evaluate and, if applicable, dismiss these control authorities. The dismissal of authorities is an exclusive constitutional power of the National Assembly. The Constitutional Court, which is not even selected by the CPCCS, cannot be dismissed by anyone else.
At present, Ecuador does not have a Constitutional Court. The President’s handpicked CPCCS-T [after dismissing the court] declared a two month absence of the court which expire this week and will surely be extended. Throughout this lapse, Ecuadorians have no one to guarantee our constitutional rights.
The illegally dismissed authorities had to be replaced by their [already selected] alternates, as the law demands, but the “Transitory” CPCCS-T directly appointed its replacements. Not even the unconstitutional referendum gave it the power to directly appoint authorities.
Ecuador is presently a “Transitory Republic”. We have a transitory CPCCS, a transitory Judicial Council, a transitory National Electoral Council, and similarly with the Prosecutor General, Ombudsman, Comptroller General, and all superintendents – all transitory and practically all open enemies of my government. All were illegally and arbitrarily appointed by the CPCCS-T and under its complete control.
The Ecuadorian state has five branches: the Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Electoral, and the Transparency and Social Oversight branch. Three of these five branches are in the hands transitory officials directly appointed the Executive’s handpicked CPCCS-T.
The temporary authorities were sworn in before the CPCCS-T, violating article 120 of the Constitution which states that they must sworn in before the National Assembly. I hope you understand what it means to be pursued by an “acting” prosecutor directly appointed and sworn in before a “transitory” Council whose president – a personal and political enemy of mine- publicly insults me every day and says that I must go to prison.
By Jerry Alatalo
“I want no money raised by injustice.”
“Letter of State”, 1027; after pilgrimage to Rome.
– CANUTE “THE GREAT” (995-1035) King of England and Denmark
ikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange remains by almost any definition or perspective a political prisoner inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, U.K.. Despite having never been charged with a single crime and many expert attorneys and the United Nations stating his detention is simply … well, – wrong, Mr. Assange is still being held after more than 6-years and denied his clearly justified freedom.
Two historical examples similar to Julian Assange’s are those of Israeli nuclear weapons whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu and Nelson Mandela of South Africa. Remarkably, in both cases unjust, extreme political retribution became chosen and actualized by apartheid states against men opposed to their governments’ policies.
Mr. Vanunu told the world of Israel’s previously secret possession of nuclear weapons and paid the price of enduring long-term silencing and loss of freedom. After the Israeli nuclear technician leaked information on Israel’s secret nuclear weapons to British press in 1986, he was eventually caught in Italy and returned to Israel, where after a behind-closed-doors trial he became sentenced to 18 years in prison, of which 11 of those years were especially brutal in solitary confinement. Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg once described Mordechai Vanunu as the “prominent figure of the nuclear era”.
Nelson Mandela, who became a practicing attorney, spent the years 1963-1990 locked up in South African prisons until built-up worldwide pressure started bringing down apartheid. He was finally granted freedom, and after being released from prison he was met by massive crowds of celebrating supporters. Mandela then eventually joined with South African President F. W. de Klerk in bringing an end to apartheid. Mandela shared the Nobel Peace Prize with President F.W. DeKlerk – the man he succeeded as president after Mandela won election in 1994. Nelson Mandela is remembered as one of the most influential political figures of recent history.
In the last years of his life, Nelson Mandela would joke about being labeled a “terrorist” – by those trying to sustain South African apartheid – to fellow members of The Elders group, including Ireland’s former president Mary Robinson, America’s former president Jimmy Carter, former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan (who passed away at 80 on August 18), and other retired leaders in the group. Mr. Mandela wondered out loud to his Elder friends about whether he’d be allowed to pass through the Pearly Gates – considering he was a “terrorist”.
any hold the erroneous perception that Julian Assange is a whistleblower, but in fact he is a publisher who facilitates dissemination of information obtained by those who find “sitting on” facts which must absolutely become known by all people both unconscionable and willingly accepting of one’s own moral bankruptcy. If one could imagine life were truth, WikiLeaks represents the emergency room and intensive care unit anguished whistleblowers go to after coming to the painful realization they have no other options. Julian Assange’s millions of supporters around the Earth unanimously agree: “Julian’s only ‘crime’ is that of sharing the truth – and that is not a crime.” It is important to note that WikiLeaks’ entire archived, searchable mountain of published materials is 100% accurate – a phenomenal achievement in journalism, taking into account that means WikiLeaks’ over 10,000,000 (ten million!) documents.
Of the nations most responsible and closely associated with the unjust, over 6-years-long imprisoning of Julian Assange – United States, United Kingdom, Ecuador, Australia, – none have the nationwide societal conditions which warrant comparisons to formerly apartheid South Africa and present-day apartheid Israel. South Africa was practicing apartheid through extreme, violent racial discrimination and separation between majority blacks and minority whites, and Israel practices apartheid now through violent racial discrimination and suppression of human rights directed against Palestinians.
The uniquely related form of apartheid visible in the case of Julian Assange is extreme discrimination directed against him specifically and, by extension, all free speech advocates on Earth seriously intent on gaining and sharing vital truth.
The extraordinary situations, circumstances and facts differ between the three men when considering their respective experiences, yet those knowledgeable of Nelson Mandela, Mordechai Vanunu and Julian Assange’s life stories understand they belong with other equally courageous, respected men and women in a distinct grouping. Is it reasonable to suggest “Mandela, Vanunu, Assange …” – positioning the three men in the same sentence – represents a definite distinct continuum?
Here’s the simple, direct, 100% accurate answer …
Free Julian Assange.
(Thank you to #Unity4J at YouTube)
By Jerry Alatalo
“Government was intended to suppress injustice, but its effect has been to embody and perpetuate it.”
– WILLIAM GODWIN (1756-1836) English minister, reformer, philosopher
wiss bank whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld praised the work of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange recently at an event in Malta. Like Julian Assange, Mr. Birkenfeld was targeted for persecution after revealing inconvenient truth concerning corruption and imprisoned.
Brad Birkenfeld wrote an extremely revealing book about his extraordinary experiences in the highest levels of global banking, government protection of the white-collar criminal rich and powerful, and all things corrupt in the arena of top-floor finance titled “Lucifer’s Banker”. Men and women interested in reading his book and learning more about the dark side of international banking can visit Mr. Birkenfeld’s website: https://LucifersBanker.com/
The following short presentation in Malta by Brad Birkenfeld in May 2018 is particularly relevant as it relates to the current uncertain situation of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. Being a major whistleblower himself, Mr. Birkenfeld has focused his efforts on supporting and protecting fellow truth tellers – including Julian Assange, who he’s worked with personally – through advocacy for strong legislation around the entire world.
Reports suggest Mr. Assange faces an imminent eviction from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he has been held a virtual prisoner for more than 6 years. In the eyes of people familiar with the highly controversial situation with huge ramifications for journalism and free speech ideals, the most objectionable, bewildering aspect of Julian Assange’s years-long legal nightmare is the fact he has not been convicted of any crime – whatsoever.
Brad Birkenfeld calls attention to his association with and appreciation of Julian Assange toward the end of his presentation:
“But I’ll just end in one note … Is that when I met with Julian Assange in London – and I think this poor guy is going to be extradited out of the Ecuadorian Embassy soon – he told me a situation with respect to why this was going on with WikiLeaks, and how it paralleled with my whistleblowing – historic whistleblowing – at UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland). And he said ‘Look, some people have a gut instinct to do the right thing. Do you have the gut instinct to do the right thing if you see something wrong – to report something?’ ”
“I was fortunate enough to meet Daphne (investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia) here in Malta before her demise, her murder, and this was a very unfortunate thing for Malta. And we talked for a little bit about this situation, about transparency, and about offshore banking and so forth. And it brought it home to light that I had moved here from the United States and I live here in Malta.”
“And I got to know her very little, but we had this chat before she was murdered. And I think it’s important to understand her demise is so important for all of us, because she was a crusader; she was a fighter. Just as I was a fighter; just as Julian Assange is a fighter; Mr. Snowden’s a fighter.”
“You may not like some of these people; you may have an opinion, and that’s fine. But what their end result was … was better for all of society. And I think that’s the message here: you’re either part of the problem, or you’re part of the solution. Which one is it? (Responds to member of audience) ‘Yeah … there you go. Exactly. Precisely.’ And that’s where whistleblowing is paramount.”
“And I’ll sort of end on the whistleblowing note, because they think it’s … It’s important. I go around and lecture throughout Europe and Asia and America, and what I try to tell people is just think about it logically – if you’re not breaking the law you don’t need whistleblowers. Don’t break the law.”
“So, law enforcement should embrace whistleblowers, not attack them. They’re an extension of law enforcement. They do their job better, whether they’re understaffed, under budget, maybe even part of the problem. There are corrupt police out there in law enforcement. A whistleblower will come in and give you everything. Harry Markopolos – great friend of mine –, he exposed the (Bernie) Madoff fraud. He didn’t get paid anything, but he did the right thing. He yelled and screamed for a decade, until he did something about it.”
“So, the point I’m trying to make here is that whistleblowing … To protect whistleblowers – number one, and to compensate them – number two. And that’s a controversial part here in Europe, but it works. I’m a prime example of why it works. I even started whistleblowing before the program came in play, so it wasn’t about the money. Everyone says ‘Ah, you did it for the money’. Absolutely not. So my point is … Is that Europe needs to pass, and Asia needs to pass, positive whistleblowing laws to protect and compensate whistle blowers.”
“Because they make your life better; your children’s lives better; your grandchildren’s lives better. Or … we’ll just go and we’ll steal and cheat and lie, and we’ll just keep that going. So you have a choice. What society do you want to live in? So that’s why whistleblowing is so paramount.”
“And that’s why I go around lecturing and send the message out. Not just about what I did at UBS and in Switzerland, which was cataclysmic as I said before – but also because it might send a message to each and every one of you, and your children if you have children, that this is so important to go ahead and praise whistleblowing.”
“We’ve seen it time and time again. And as I said: if you’re not breaking the law you won’t need whistleblowers. So, let’s promote the whistleblowing angle, and let’s move forward to help everyone in that regard.”
“Thank you very much.”
(Thank you to d10e at YouTube)