Full 25 Minute In Depth Assange Interview On BBC Radio 4 - Tuesday 12/21/10 (Transcript & Audio)

Today programme presenter John Humphrys went to meet him for what is Mr Assange's first face-to-face broadcast interview since his release.

Q: Why won't you go back to Sweden?

JA: I have been back. I was there for some five weeks after these initial allegations were made. They were dropped within 24 hours of them first being made. The most senior prosecutor in Stockholm reviewed them and they were dropped. Then politician Claes Borgstrom became involved, other forces became involved and the case, the investigative part of the case, was taken up again. We waited some four/five weeks to be interviewed, so I could put my side of this case forward, and that did not happen.

Q: But it has now.

JA: It did not happen, and then I asked: "OK, I have things to do, I had only planned to be in Sweden for one week, it's time to leave. Is there any problem with that?" For the first three weeks, the Swedish prosecution refused to answer whether it was ok to leave or not. So caught there in limbo. Finally, grudgingly admitted that there was no reason to keep me there. And at that stage I went about my normal course of work. And then they say they want another interview, fine. There's plenty ways to do that. So why can't those things be done?

Q: Why can't you go back to Sweden?

JA: I don't need to go back to Sweden.

Q: You do because the law says you must.

JA: Well no, the law says that I also have certain rights. I do not need to go and speak to random prosecutors around the world who simply want to have a chat and won't do it in any other standard way.

Q: But they don't just want to have a chat, do they?

JA: No, they do.

Q: That rather belittles what this is all about. Very serious allegations have been made. It puzzles a lot of people that you're not saying: "Yes, I want to go to deal with these serious allegations, I will go anywhere they want me to go."

JA: I have already spoken to them.

Q: But they want to talk to you again. That's not uncommon in these cases.

JA: If they want to charge me, they can charge me. They have decided not to charge me.

Much more including the full 25 minutes audio recording of the interview (which has an introduction which isn't included in the transcript): http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stm

ETA the interview is worth listening to for nuances, rather than relying on just the transcript.

And due to the way that our beloved "real media" operates, in its insidious 24'/7 programming of folks, that type of sad situation is only going to get worse.

The New World Order is shaping up just fine.

I stand with Michael Moore in his support of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange and only wish that I could help out more in terms of monetary support.

Manning broke his commitment (and lied about it), Assange is trying to make money off of it.


This is not that hard, folks.

my Christmas gift to myself is blocking you from further inane comments to me.

Assange is the head of an organization and some of his people are being are being assassinated. Period.

Please be aware that in the future, I will not be able to HEAR you. (Actually, to read your text.)

Ignore set.

"...capable, generous men don't create victims, they try and save people from becoming victims. That is what they are tasked to do. If they do not do that they are not worthy of respect or they are not capable."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why continue this charade?

My sympathy evaporated as soon as I realized and found that Winky was going to release documents that may or may not be authenticated on their terms.


Not going to stop / intervene in any existing wars, nah... just fun.

And they can only release documents that they have. You seem to think they have unfettered access to U.S. secret documents.

By the way, it is up to us to stop any existing wars that we are currently waging.

Oh, and why the mock-pidgin English?

Derp.

(pssssst)

It was an omelet!

Q: What has the Wikileaks leaks achieved, in your view?

JA: Already we see that we have changed governance, we have certainly changed many political figures within governments, we have caused new law reform efforts, we have caused police investigations into the abuses we expose, UN investigations, investigations here in the UK especially in relation to our revelation of the circumstances of the deaths of 109,000 people in Iraq. Before Cablegate, the change is so vast that I cannot, and my whole team cannot, even keep track of it.

Q: Isn't there a danger in the long term that we will know less about the way governments, authorities, various institutions run, because of what you call Cablegate, this release of millions of documents, millions of cables? Because in truth… what people in organisations like MI5 and MI6 will say is: "If we were doing bad things, we won't stop doing bad things, we just won't write them down."

A: That's something that I thought of before we ever launched this project. It's not so easy. There is a reason why people write things down. Yes, you can organise a small group of people to do something with just word of mouth. But if you want to enact policy, for example, to get Guantanamo Bay guards to do something, get the grunts to do something, you've got to write it down or it will not be followed.


My own opinion: Under the Fourth Amendment, an individual, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, has the right to be left alone! For a corporation, religious organization, or government entity to claim the same "right" is ridiculous!

You are kidding, right?

And the Supreme Court has asserted that the freedom of the press overrides government's claim to secrecy.

I have a real communication pathway with everybody here.

Q: I'm talking about you personally.

JA: I'm always so focussed on my work, I don't have time to think about how I perceive myself… I had time to perceive myself a bit more in solitary confinement. I was perfectly happy with myself. I wondered what that process would do. Would I think "my goodness, how have I got into this mess, is it all just too hard?"

The world is a very ungrateful place, why should I continue to suffer simply to try and do some good in the world. If the world is so viciously against it ,why don't I just go off and do some mathematics or write some books? But no, actually, I felt quite at peace.

Q: You want to change the world?

JA: Absolutely. The world has a lot of problems and they need to be reformed. And we only live once. Every person who has some ability to do something about it, if they are a person of good character, has the duty to try and fix the problems in the environment which they're in.

That is a value, that, yes, comes partly from my temperament. There is also a value that comes from my father, which is that capable, generous men don't create victims, they try and save people from becoming victims. That is what they are tasked to do. If they do not do that they are not worthy of respect or they are not capable.

And really is the best argument for NOT dumping all the cables because dumping them may create victims.

Somehow his motivation for doing what he is doing has been lost in all the noise about the sex scandals.

I have noticed less publications are sharing the cables, too. WikiLeaks' key partner The Guardian seems to have taken a back seat. Their homepage has really toned it down, for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/