July 12, 2024
Podcast: Download
Darrell Castle talks about the ordeal of Julian Assange and what his case tells us about what it means to be a real journalist in today’s world.
Transcription / Notes
THE DARK SECRETS OF WAR
Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 12th day of July in the year of our Lord 2024. I will be talking about the ordeal of Julian Assange but also what his case tells us about what it means to be a real journalist in today’s world. In essence his case tells us that the truth no longer sets us free and telling the truth has become a crime.
Before we get into the matter of Assange perhaps a little background is in order. A free press is vitally important to American freedom and if I can convey nothing else to you today it is that the press, and by that, I mean real, genuine, journalism is there to inform the people of what their government is doing. Those in government should be looking out for and expecting the press to expose their works of darkness, if they have any. That sentiment has been spoken by many from the founders all the way to the Supreme Court in the modern era.
I will illustrate my words with a quote from Justice Hugo Black in the case of The New York Times versus The United States decided in 1971. His quote came to me from an article written by Scott Ritter in his newsletter Scott Ritter Extra.
“The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose the deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”
That quote is one of the most important in American history because it is fundamental to liberty. The press is supposed to be the servant of the people, not a wholly owned subsidiary of the government itself, and certainly not of any one political party. The case quoting Justice Black goes back to the Vietnam days of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.
Ellsberg was not a journalist but an employee of the U.S. Department of Defense working in the Pentagon. He was involved in the production of a report ordered by secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that was a history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1968.
The Times printed the report on its front pages and further stated that the report showed that the Johnson administration had lied systemically to Congress and the American people about U.S. entry into and conduct of the Vietnam War. McNamara claimed that he only had the report prepared because he wanted to leave a written record for future policy makers to prevent them from making the same mistake. The report revealed lots of things the government was lying about including U.S. troops raiding into North Vietnam, etc. The optimistic picture of the war presented by the government was false and the government knew the war was unwinnable and a waste of lives. It was top secret information and although Ellsberg was not a journalist he was disturbed by the report, and he violated his security clearance by sending it to the Times who then chose to publish it on the front page.
I lived through that time, so I remember it well. I was not happy that Ellsberg released classified information and I wanted to see him punished. I admit now that I really didn’t understand what was happening and what was at stake. Ellsberg sent the information to the New York Times, but that paper made the decision on its own to publish it. The Times was perhaps not an affiliate of the Democrat Party at that time as it is now and also the Times along with other media was generally hostile to the war and happy to see it discredited. President Johnson was a lame duck and, on his way out, with Robert Kennedy predicted to be his successor.
Julian Assange is, in many ways, the opposite of Daniel Ellsberg in that he didn’t steal any government top secret documents and release them to the media. Assange was, in fact, the media because he was the founder of the internet site, Wikileaks, which endeavored to hold government accountable by revealing its secrets. People sent him information that they had obtained, and he decided whether to put it out on Wikileaks or not.
He received a video that was obtained by a U.S. Army Corporal consisting of gun camera footage shot from a U.S. helicopter. When he saw the video, he knew that it was dynamite and potentially could bring severe retaliation against him if he published. The video shows a helicopter crew being ordered to fire on civilians huddled together on the ground. Nine civilians were huddled together in the street and the machine gunner reported them as civilians, but the order clearly given to him and clearly heard was “light ’em all up.” There was hesitation on the gunner’s part and then the order “come on, fire.”
The people all went down but one and he was killed as he was running away. That is pretty obviously an international war crime and very graphic for those who saw it. Few, if any, outside those involved knew of it until Assange decided to publish it on Wikileaks and that decision sealed his fate. The U.S. came after him for espionage and treason although they never explained how a foreign national can be guilty of treason. Assange is Australian and the crime of treason can be committed only against one’s own government. Espionage was enough, however, to have him relentlessly pursued until his life was destroyed.
He was living in London at the time and was granted asylum by the nation of Ecuador in their British Embassy where he remained for seven years. He actually lived inside that building for seven years and his wife was unable to see him during that time. During those seven years, the President of Ecuador, who had granted asylum, was replaced by one who was more susceptible to American pressure. He was handed over to British authorities who put him in Belmarsh maximum security prison while his lawyers fought American requests to have him extradited to the U.S. where he would have faced long term imprisonment.
He spent five years in Belmarsh most of it in solitary confinement in a cell 23 hours a day. Keep in mind that he was not a criminal and had not been convicted of anything. He had no real due process for 12 years because he knew that his American fate had already been decided. I think I said that Assange was opposite Daniel Ellsberg and that is because he was the New York Times, not Ellsberg. The U.S. went after Ellsberg at first for espionage, but later thought better of it and left him alone. The New York Times, in the case I mentioned, proved that free press was alive then, despite the government’s best efforts.
Assange was the New York Times because he was the publisher of the information. Can you imagine the publisher or editor of the New York Times being confined for 12 years without any charges. The government wanted to make an example of the only one who had the audacity to practice real journalism. Living in a tiny cell 23 hours a day for five years is, according to the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, a crime that cannot be justified because it imposes severe mental pain and suffering beyond any reasonable retribution for criminal behavior and thus constitutes torture.
Before someone is so confined in solitary, he should at least be charged with a crime and perhaps even be guilty of one. In Assange’s case the state won and let everyone know that it claims the right to conduct its war crimes and other such deeds in total darkness and the light of day will not shine on it. If you think otherwise, then take a look at Julian Assange and be very afraid. The state sends this message to all would be journalists out in the working press and those in journalism schools. We are everything and you are nothing. We are superior and exceptional and morally correct, and our ends justify any means so don’t think about opposing us.
If you try to oppose us, you will be ostracized by your fellow journalists and that will be the least of your troubles. Just come join us like all your comrades and spit out the propaganda as we give it to you and your life will be one of ease.
In Julian Assange’s case he is guilty of no crime, but they won because they broke him after 12 years. The news of his release was met with joy, but then I started thinking about what it really means. He won his freedom, but to do so he had to compromise and plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit. The state made him say that he was guilty and that he is sorry about his guilt. He was forced to acknowledge that what he did was a crime and so lying became the price of freedom. The government doesn’t think anything about lying and has become a master at it so making him lie is no big deal to them.
Anybody who says anything the U.S. government doesn’t want him to say is in danger. You could be arrested and thrown into prison for years with no charges and no trial. His attorneys were finally able to negotiate a plea deal whereby he pled guilty to one felony charge of illegally obtaining and publishing U.S. government documents of various kinds, many of them evidencing war crimes and human rights abuses, and a few others exposing some political crimes during the Clinton campaign. His plea deal justifies the government’s history of abusing his rights along with denial of press freedom because after all, he was guilty of espionage.
One interesting thing about the plea deal is the choice of locations. There is a federal courthouse on the island of Saipan in the Northern Marianas, a U.S. possession. The reason that island is a U.S. possession is because a few thousand U.S. Marines paid for it with their lives in June 1944. That’s right we just memorialized the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings in France but just one week after that on June 15, 1944, U.S. Marines landed on Saipan in what was the largest Pacific landing to date. The U.S. was so powerful it could conduct the two largest amphibious assaults in world history on opposite sides of the earth at virtually the same time. So, now I must ask you what’s happened, what’s become of us.
Apparently, it was Assange’s lawyers who wanted that location because it was under U.S. jurisdiction, but not in the U.S. It is fairly remote but also fairly close to his native Australia. I saw a video of him seeing his wife who waited all those years for him. He didn’t want to set foot on U.S. soil, that bastion of liberty that so many were willing to die for in 1944. If he had landed in Washington there would have been no way to prevent the government from reneging on the deal and bringing him to trial in Washington D.C. It’s a shame that his lawyers had good reason to think that a fair trial was not possible.
The New York Times shied away from the Assange story for much of his ordeal, but finally published an article entitled, “Assange Agrees to Plead Guilty in Exchange for Release, Ending Standoff with the U.S.” The best I can make of the deal is that he is free and that is good. What it means in a bad sense is an overturning of the case of New York Times versus U.S. It is an assault on the first Amendment and the concept of the 1st Amendment as a guardian of a free press, and the vital importance of a free press. So, Julian is free, but the press is not.
Finally, folks, are there any people left who still practice real journalism? Yes, a few because although Julian is free, he can’t work anymore, at least not without extreme risk. Some others perhaps, definitely Tucker Carlson, definitely Glenn Greenwald, definitely Matt Taibbi and perhaps I would include Bari Weiss as well.
At least that’s the way I see it,
Until next time folks,
This is Darrell Castle,
Thanks for listening.